Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary

[Declan McCullagh <declan@vorlon.mit.edu>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 19:51:28 -0700
From: Lee Tien <tien@well.com>
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary

Thanks to Barry Steinhardt for his comments, especially his saying that:

>The language was an improvement , but it doesn't belong in the bill and we
>are still lobbying to have the criminalization provision removed.
>
>All of us in the cyber liberties community need to watch this legislation
>very carefully. It could easily get much worse as a "compromise" is reached
>with the Administration. In the end,the bill could be laden with amendments
>on issues like key recovery that defeat our purpose of making strong and
>secure encryption generally available.
>
>At some point, we may need to say that no bill is better than a bad bill.

This is a crucial point.  This isn't an exercise in back-patting, in doling
out kudos.  This struggle engages a stubborn and devious foe.

I also thought Michael Sims was on target in pointing out that Safdar's
criticism of Declan were basically arguments from authority.  Speaking only
for myself, it's not enough to look at who's for and who's against.

The Administration likes to say, trust us, we know what's best.  We should
say the emperor has no clothes if it's true.

Some supporters of these bills seem to respond to substantive criticisms
with comments about loyalty or solidarity.  What's wrong with robust, open
debate about substance?

I don't assume that those on the "inside" have better knowledge or
understanding of the law.  If they're going to defend the bills on the
merits, they should explain the merits.

I don't assume that everyone agrees on what the bills should say.  Some
might think that some "willful use of encryption" provision is consistent
with civil liberties.  (Personally, I don't and I'm glad to see Barry feels
the same way.) But my point is, let's be clear whether we're disagreeing
about values or political tactics.  Is a compromise acceptable because, all
things considered, it's the best we can do, or because we actually agree on
the merits?

Finally, I do believe that the insiders better understand the political
need for compromise.  But I'd like to be educated about it.  In particular,
I'd like to understand why the President wouldn't veto any bill he doesn't
completely agree with.  Unless there's something veto-proof out there, or
some other bargaining chip, why wouldn't he veto it?

Lee