Re: SAFE Bill is a Disaster--"Use a cipher, go to prison"

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 8:52 AM -0800 5/1/97, sameer wrote:
>>
>> The status quo, in our view, is not good enough.  Because of the export
>> controls and the lack of a coherent US encryption policy, Internet users do
>> not have access to the privacy protecting encryption products they need.
>
>	Yes they do. There is a growing international crypto
>development industry. The export controls have hampered access to the
>products they need, but it has not eliminated said access.
>	SAFE is one step closer towards making *import* of
>cryptography illegal. It's a good thing Anguilla looks like a
>relatively reasonable place to live, with people like you "on our
>side".

In response to my post last night denouncing the SAFE Bill, some sources
have informed me (by phone and e-mail) that the whole SAFE thing is of
course not being driven by democratic or liberty motives. Rather, it's a
move by certain factions of industry to ensure that _some_ of their crypto
and Net commerce products can be more freely exported while also ensuring
that certain of their foreign competitors cannot enter the U.S. market
(hence the re-export clauses).

At the risk of using certain cliches, this is a bit like Farben and Krupp
getting special legislation making it easier for them to export certain of
their products while the law cracks down on both imports of their
competitors' products and on civil liberties in general.

That CDT and other organizations with "democracy" in their names would
shill for such a callow move to aid certain exports while suppressing basic
freedoms is regrettable. I can't wait for those "Use a cipher, go to
prison" billboards.

I predict that the uproar over this "use a cipher, go to prison" bill will
eventually equal the uproar over the EFF-supported Digital Telephony
(CALEA) Act of 1994. CDT and other organizations leading the charge will
never again be able to say their concerns are about civil liberties.

Oh, and Sameer, those products you re-export, like Stronghold, may soon be
banned by SAFE. It may not even be legal, even according to current law,
for you to operate out of Anguilla.

(Why, then, does the Administration oppose SAFE? And is this a reason for
folks like us to support SAFE? The Administration wants even more draconian
restrictions on basic freedoms, and SAFE does not go far enough in
restricting freedoms. Besides, with no effective lobbying group for the
"libertarian" side of the issue, the Administration knows it can safely (no
pun intended) argue against SAFE...worse case, for them, it passes, and all
the clauses about law enforcment needs and national security needs keep
things at least as bad as they are today, and probably worse. Best case,
for them, SAFE is defeated and the way is clear for them to introduce the
"Safe Streets and Children's Protection Act of 1997.")

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."