Likewise, EPIC can and should announce that it will not support SAFE if any form of criminalization language remains.
We would not find it acceptable to have a law which encouraged the placement of microphones and cameras in private homes, "voluntarily," but which then said "Anyone who does not participate in the Voluntary Safe Surveillance Program and who is found to have committed a crime furthered by the failure to volunteer shall be subjected to additional imprisonment of at least 5 years."
This is what the criminalization of crypto is all about. It is not, as is so often suggested, analogous to "use of a gun" in a crime, nor to "use of the public mails." It is much closer to the examples I cite, language and religion, than to use of a publicly-regulated monopoly like the telephones or the mail. The gun situation is presumably related to the threat of bodily harm...I'm not saying I agree with "use a gun, go to prison" sentencing enhancements, but a stronger case can be made than for "use a cipher, go to prison.
I don't need the lecture. I've made the argument better than you have and I've made it longer than you have. I don't recall you protesting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (1984), working on the RTM case (a CFAA prosecution in 1988). You weren't involved in the FOIA case for 2600.
So, Marc can immediately prove the honesty of his point by:
a. denouncing any "return address" requirements and refusing to cooperate with any Congressthing who espouses such wrong-headed ideas
Great plan. I'll watch TV and let Congress pass a bill requiring mandatory identification for Internet users. Really clever.
b. denounce SAFE if it has any hint whatsoever of criminalization of crypto
(Or of any of the (apparent) language about technical review panels deciding on exports...this is, to many of us, a code phrase indicating that SAFE will by no means make export of arbitrarily unbreakable ciphers an automatic process.)
This is getting tiring. Who do you think first opposed the proposed amendment to Pro-CODE creating the review board? You are behind the curve, but you act like you're way out in front. I'm probably in a much better position to criticize the failure of Tim May et al to stand up for crypto freedom than the other way around.
Being a rejectionist, I don't see the point of dealing with Congress. The usual view is that "If you don't get involved, things will be even worse." I'm not convinced of this. It's often better to not lend them any support, not lend them any technical expertise, and devote all energies to undermining and challenging their actions later.
And the existence proof of this proposition is . . .
And helping them draft legislation only feeds the process.
I think it was George Carlin who said, "If you think you're part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
Good high school humor for a good high school philosophy. I am underwhelmed. Marc. Marc.