My lord, I'm agreeing with Jim Bell! Right now, no controls exit on domestic crypto, though strict export controls are in place. The question is: Do we want to give up any domestic freedom in exchange for a relaxation of export controls? (Congress is, after all, built on compromises between warring factions.) My instinct is to say "No." Let the courts strike down ITAR, EAR, and its progeny, while we keep our freedoms domestically. -Declan On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Jim Bell wrote:
At 11:13 4/25/97 -0700, Ernest Hua wrote:
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 18:17:09 -0400 To: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup
It also creates new criminal penalties for using encryption to further a criminal act ... Remember that Maryland bill that would criminalize sending "annoying" or "harassing" email? If the Goodlatte bill became law, Marylanders who signed their messages with PGP or telnetted to local ISPs could be slammed with an all-expenses-paid trip to the Federal pen for five years ... In other words, SAFE would turn state misdemeanors into Federal felonies. This is not good.
Ok. So it's kind of bad in this respect, but let's face it ... we can't have everything OUR way, the FIRST time around. Washington politics is just not that way (not that you need such a reminder).
I think you misunderstand the situation. The government is in somewhat of a disadvantage by virtue of the fact that there is relatively little pro-censorship and anti-encryption legislation. Absent such legislation, the status-quo moves in a relatively free fashion, which is why the Internet is mostly unregulated today.
A coalition of groups is sending a letter to Goodlatte tomorrow supporting the bill but expressing concern over the criminalization provision. Interested in signing on? Email David Sobel: sobel@epic.org.
Let's let the legislative process (whatever you think of it) take its course.
That's precisely what they want us to allow, and that's exactly why we shouldn't accept it. As Tim May has repeatedly pointed out, we are probably better off with NO legislation than bad legislation, and all we've been offerred so far this year is bad legislation.
Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com