---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 23:00:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Response to "SAFE bill and cutting crypto-deals" ******* Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 01:56:20 -0400 From: Jason Gull <jgull@UMICH.EDU> While I don't particularly like this segment of the proposed bill either, I think Declan is engaging in some minor hyperbole when he says "this language has no business becoming law." We already have federal laws which make the use of a telephone or the mails to commit a felony into an additional offense, so this provision -- quite similar to obstruction of evidence, from the look of it -- doesn't seem at odds with precedent. With so many "hurdles," as Declan puts it, the language seems tailored to the specific case where incriminating information is encrypted solely to evade law enforcement and (like the passing of incriminating information to one's attorney in an attempt to make it "privileged") it doesn't seem outlandish to think that such conduct ought to be criminalized. Granted, there's the danger of the "slippery slope" -- that allowing any restrictions on crypto will lead to a gradual encroachment of government into other uses of cryptography. However, whether or not it is a good idea or not, politics and previosu law seem to firmly support such a provision. -Jason Gull jgull@umich.edu