On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
The problem with all the current bills like original SAFE and ProCODE is that they're too wimpy, abstract, arcane. Who cares about protecting business? Nobody, at least not when you'll be dubbed soft on crime. So what's the one thing everyone cares about and wants to protect?
Yes, that's right: CHILDREN!!!! I think someone should introduce a bill called "The Child Molester Prevention and Effective Sentencing Act of 1997."
The summary: "To reduce crime, protect our children, and secure our private communications from child molesters, pedophiles, and various perverts, this bill would spur the development of privacy-enhancing technologies by removing all export controls on encryption products."
Who would ever vote against the CMPA? Who wants to be soft on child molesters and random perverts? Not even Louis Freeh could successfully oppose this one...
-Declan
(Okay, okay. It's a Friday. Time for me to go home...)
I remember one of the NET moderators asked why they should use encryption. What if you want to send a message to your child saying you will be late after school. What is to prevent a pedophile from forging such a message? And if a pedophile intercepts such a message, couldn't he arrive 5 minutes early saying that "dad changed his plans again and sent me...". Now, Rep. Tauzin wants to make it illegal to listen in to any "private" radio communication (yes listen, not just repeat), since Gingrich couldn't have access to encrypted communication and someone listened in on his cell phone. One law prevents security from being available, so they think that a second law will prevent people from listening in. Repealing a law preventing fences is more effective than adding a draconian penalty for tresspass. --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---