Re: SAFE Bill discussion

[jimbell@pacifier.com (Jim Bell)]

At 21:12 5/01/97 -0400, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their ability to
>roll out Key Recovery.  They've said as much in the letter Declan forwarded:
>
>   "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government
>    from using appropriate incentives to support a key management
>    infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added]
>
>Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be
>out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it?  I think not.

Then you are thinking FAR too simplistically and your logic is poor.   The
Administration thugs realized long ago that they were (correctly) viewed as
a "reverse barometer": Freedom and privacy-loving people saw, generally,
that if something was good the thugs would often oppose it, and if it was
bad the thugs would often support it.  

However, the Maladministration is getting desperate, because they have no
toehold in the regulation of domestic encryption, and they've decided that
it's vitally important to develop such a system.  They know, however, that
their opponents are going to be watching for exactly such a development, and
they know that it isn't going to come cheap.  Perhaps they realize that the
only way to try to sneak it through Congress is to pretend to oppose it for
"plausible" reasons, hoping that it will collect a little non-thinking
support from the people who blindly still view the thugs as a reverse
barometer 100% of the time.  Eventually, if the bill passes, they can sign
it, concealing their glee at their ability to sneak in an atrocious
provision despite the watchful eye of many of us.



>Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being
>unreasonable?  I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton
>Administration.  Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep?

Further poor "logic."  There are obviously going to be incorrect reasons for
opposing SAFE, but there may also be correct reasons.  The fact that the
thugs claim to oppose SAFE, although for the incorrect reasons simply shows
how wrong they are.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com