[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ACM/IEEE Letter on Cryp
The export language comes from the origional Cantwell bill and orders the
Commerce Sec. to allow export of mass market software and allows somewhat more
limited export of non-mass market software dependng on what is available to
banks in that country. Its not ideal (I think the limits on non-mass market
should be the same as mass market- almost none except for a limited number of
"terrorist" countries (we'd get killed if we argue that those should be
eliminated) but overall much better than leahy's and somewhat better than
goodlatte's bill.
-d
--------------------------------------
Date: 4/6/96 6:07 PM
To: Dave Banisar
From: jim bell
At 01:22 PM 4/6/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote:
>At 9:58 AM 4/6/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
>>[on the Burns bill]
>>That sounds okay as far as it goes, but I can see a potential problem. Your
>>wording above is unclear, but if the Burns bill totally eliminates export
>>controls that's great. However, we've frequently heard talk of "compromises"
>>like the Leahy bill which seem to relate exportable encryption to that which
>>is already available overseas. There have been suspicions around there that
>>this is intended to keep the American producers out of the market as long as
>>possible, which is still a problem. I don't think that's acceptable.
>
>I have no objection to the salami approach in this case. The way the Burns
>proposal has been described, it seems all together better than the current
>situation. We can fight the next battle after people realize that the four
>horseman are well and truly loose, and that the world hasn't ended. When
>the Burns proposal has been written up into a bill and introduced, I expect
>I will be writing my congresscritters asking them to support it
Myself also, I suppose. That's why I'm so concerned that it not contain any
component that could be easily be re-written more to our liking. The big
attraction of the Burns bill, from a strategic standpoint, is that (by the
elimination of export controls, assuming it does it) it removes the one
major "must do" task onto which could be loaded other "features" that we
can't stand, as the Leahy bill tried to do. Once export controls are
eliminated on crypto, it should become impossible to get enough support to
pass a bill even mentioning key escrow, let alone mandating it.
Jim Bell
[email protected]
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by epic.org with SMTP;6 Apr 1996 18:06:34 -0500
Received: from ip8.van1.pacifier.com by pacifier.com
(Smail3.1.29.1 #6) with smtp for <[email protected]>
id m0u5ggW-0008xbC; Sat, 6 Apr 96 14:42 PST
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 14:40:21 -0800
To: [email protected] (Bill Frantz),"Dave Banisar" <[email protected]>,
"Cypherpunks List" <[email protected]>
From: jim bell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: ACM/IEEE Letter on Cryp
_________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE>>ACM/IEEE Letter on Cryp
_________________________________________________________________________
David Banisar ([email protected]) * 202-544-9240 (tel)
Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax)
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org
Washington, DC 20003 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org