Re: TWO Letters on SAFE

[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>]

Sorry, Shabbir, that doesn't cut it. You said I did my research "poorly,"
when in fact I was correct to say CDT asked the subcommittee to approve the
SAFE bill unchanged. Perhaps you should take your own advice next time and
do a bit of factchecking.

And I'm not "attacking" CDT. I'm not calling them "traitors to the
republic," as some others have. I simply posted this:

 >>* Didn't CDT, unlike the other groups like EPIC/ACLU/EFF/ATR, send a
 >>letter to the House subcommittee on April 29 urging that SAFE be approved
 >>without any changes? (I'm in Oklahoma right now and I have a copy of that
 >>letter in my office in DC, but that's what I remember.)

If that's an "attack," I'm Dorothy Denning.

I'm surprised, and disappointed, that you're so thin-skinned -- and so
eager to savage those who share your objectives: no export controls and no
domestic laws relating to encryption.

-Declan

****************

At 12:02 PM -0400 5/2/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>Actually, I think you do.  There aren't any other groups out there who sent
>letters urging the entire subcommittee to start hacking on the bill at the
>subcommittee level.  Even the IPC letter to Goodlatte said to address the
>issue at the full committee level.
>
>That seems to be the strategy everyone is pursuing, so if you're going to
>attack CDT for it, you had better include VTW, the ACLU, EPIC, EFF, et al.
>
>-S
>
>At 8:51 AM -0700 5/2/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>Thanks, Marc, for posting the URL for CDT's letter urging the House
>>subcommittee to approve SAFE without amendment. I was quoting from memory.
>>
>>No, Shabbir, I don't think I owe anyone a "big fucking apology."
>>
>>-Declan
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 2 May 1997, Marc Rotenberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Shabbir is a very good organizer and often very busy, which
>>> may explain the confusion about the TWO letters that were
>>> sent out regarding SAFE.
>>>
>>> CDT sent a letter to Hon. Howard Conable, the chair of the
>>> Subcommittee, on April 24 which said that "CDT strongly urges
>>> you to report H.R. 695, the SAFE Act, out of the Courts
>>> and Intellectual Property Subcommittee without amendment."
>>> [The CDT letter is at
>>> http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_105/SAFE/970424_CDT_ltr.html]
>>>
>>> EPIC helped coordinate a different letter for the Internet
>>> Privacy Coalition, which went to Rep. Goodlatte on April
>>> 28 and said
>>>
>>>      While expressing our support for the measure, we wish
>>>      also to state our concern about one provision contained
>>>      in the bill. We believe that this provision, which would
>>>      create new criminal penalties for the use of encryption in
>>>      furtherance of a crime, could undermine the otherwise laudable
>>>      goals of the legislation. For the reasons set forth below, we
>>>      recommend that this provision be reconsidered when the Committee
>>>      considers the bill.
>>>
>>> The IPC letter was signed by 26 privacy groups, user organizations,
>>> private companies, and trade associations. [The IPC letter is
>>> at http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html ]
>>>
>>>
>>> Marc Rotenberg
>>> EPIC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 8:55 AM -0500 5/2/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>>> >At 8:49 AM -0400 5/2/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>> >>Two quick points:
>>> >>
>>> >>* Didn't CDT, unlike the other groups like EPIC/ACLU/EFF/ATR, send a
>>> >>letter to the House subcommittee on April 29 urging that SAFE be approved
>>> >>without any changes? (I'm in Oklahoma right now and I have a copy of that
>>> >>letter in my office in DC, but that's what I remember.)
>>> >
>>> >Declan, I can't believe you did your research so poorly.  Go look at the
>>> >Internet Privacy Coalition letter at
>>> >http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html or go to the crypto.com SAFE
>>> >bill page at http://www.crypto.com/safe_bill/ and read the pointer from
>>> >there.
>>> >
>>> >You'll see that CDT signed the very same letter that EPIC, ACLU, EFF, ATR,
>>> >Eagle Forum, VTW, and PGP all signed.
>>> >
>>> >Since you've been laboring under this mistaken impression, you owe
>>>somebody
>>> >at CDT a big fucking apology.
>>> >
>>> >-S
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>On Thu, 1 May 1997, 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.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much
>>> >>> solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several
>>> >>> other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a
>>> >>> criticism of one provision.  However the overall statement was of
>>>support.
>>> >>> (see http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> As far as I can tell, everyone criticizing the bill either thinks that:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 	a) CDT actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, or
>>> >>> 	b) pretty much all of the Internet advocates believe that
>>>this bill
>>> >>>            is needed and are doing the best they can with what
>>>Congress has
>>> >>>            written.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans
>>>for Tax
>>> >>> Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer
>>>Professionals for
>>> >>> Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for
>>>Criminal
>>> >>> Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 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?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Here's a great excerpt from the Internet Privacy Coalition letter:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   The pending bill provides a positive framework for the reforms
>>>that are
>>> >>>   long overdue in this critical area. It makes clear that the sale
>>>or use
>>> >>> of
>>> >>>   encryption, a vital technique to promote network security and
>>>individual
>>> >>>   privacy, should not be restricted in the United States. This is
>>>the view
>>> >>>   widely shared by users of the Internet and the computer and
>>> >>>communications
>>> >>>   industry. It was also a central recommendation of the
>>> >>>   report of the National Research Council last year.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for
>>>living.
>>> >>> I'm glad to be counted among them.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -S
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -Shabbir
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>



-------------------------
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/