[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup
At 11:13 4/25/97 -0700, Ernest Hua wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 18:17:09 -0400
>> To: [email protected]
>> From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
>> Subject: FC: Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup
>
>> It also creates new criminal penalties for using encryption to
>> further a criminal act ... Remember that Maryland bill that would
>> criminalize sending "annoying" or "harassing" email? If the
>> Goodlatte bill became law, Marylanders who signed their messages
>> with PGP or telnetted to local ISPs could be slammed with an
>> all-expenses-paid trip to the Federal pen for five years ... In
>> other words, SAFE would turn state misdemeanors into Federal
>> felonies. This is not good.
>
>Ok. So it's kind of bad in this respect, but let's face it ... we
>can't have everything OUR way, the FIRST time around. Washington
>politics is just not that way (not that you need such a reminder).
I think you misunderstand the situation. The government is in somewhat of a
disadvantage by virtue of the fact that there is relatively little
pro-censorship and anti-encryption legislation. Absent such legislation,
the status-quo moves in a relatively free fashion, which is why the Internet
is mostly unregulated today.
>> A coalition of groups is sending a letter to Goodlatte tomorrow supporting
>> the bill but expressing concern over the criminalization provision.
>> Interested in signing on? Email David Sobel: [email protected].
>
>Let's let the legislative process (whatever you think of it) take its
>course.
That's precisely what they want us to allow, and that's exactly why we
shouldn't accept it. As Tim May has repeatedly pointed out, we are probably
better off with NO legislation than bad legislation, and all we've been
offerred so far this year is bad legislation.
Jim Bell
[email protected]