The draft bill which currently exists only takes the export controls on crpyto. The provisions on key escrow, criminal penalities and other problems are not in there and Burns staff have no intention of letting them in. The actual bill will be introduced in about 2 weeks. -dave -------------------------------------- Date: 4/2/96 2:46 PM To: Dave Banisar From: jim bell At 04:24 PM 4/1/96 -0500, Dave Banisar wrote:
Association For Computing Machinery
[address deleted]
Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers
[address deleted]
April 2, 1996 [thank heavens it wasn't April 1!] Honorable Conrad Burns Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space [etc] Dear Chairman Burns:
On behalf of the nation's two leading computing and engineering associations, we are writing to support your efforts, and the efforts of the other cosponsors of the Encrypted Communications Privacy Act, to remove unnecessarily restrictive controls on the export of encryption technology. The Encrypted Communications Privacy Act sets out the minimum changes that are necessary to the current export controls on encryption technology. However, we believe that the inclusion of issues that are tangential to export, such as key escrow and encryption in domestic criminal activities, is not necessary. The relaxation of export controls is of great economic importance to industry and users, and should not become entangled in more controversial matters.
As far as it goes, and considering that it's from an industry group, this sounds like an excellent response to this Burns bill proposal. (Not "Bill," because it's still not available, apparently.) This response is probably as close as we can expect to a repudiation of the Leahy bill. It still isn't clear, though, whether the Burns bill is intended to be just an elimination of export controls on encryption, or whether it will contain other provisions. My question, which still hasn't been answered, is: "Does this bill exist yet?" The answer is really not inconsequential, because if it _isn't_ at least sketched out yet, then that either should give us the opportunity to add provisions we want, or alert us that there is still the risk from Denning-types of including provisions we don't want. Either way, action is called for, if only action to keep somebody else from taking action. I don't have any objection to a bill which merely eliminates export requirements on encryption; that would be a substantial step in the proper direction. If that's the best we can do for this session of Congress, I hope we can achieve this as a stepping-stone. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by epic.org with SMTP;2 Apr 1996 14:44:17 -0500 Received: from ip17.van1.pacifier.com by pacifier.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #6) with smtp for <banisar@epic.org> id m0u4Bhn-0008xuC; Tue, 2 Apr 96 11:25 PST Message-Id: <m0u4Bhn-0008xuC@pacifier.com> X-Sender: jimbell@pacifier.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 11:24:08 -0800 To: "Dave Banisar" <banisar@epic.org>, "Cypherpunks List" <cypherpunks@toad.com> From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> Subject: Re: ACM/IEEE Letter on Crypto _________________________________________________________________________ Subject: RE>>ACM/IEEE Letter on Crypto _________________________________________________________________________ David Banisar (Banisar@epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org Washington, DC 20003 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org