On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
(Then of course there's White's "compromise" language floating around that would double these criminal penalties. And Oxley -- in an effort to split the coalition -- is circulating draft language that might exempt some forms of mundane crypto-devices from his crypto-ban. Who knows? Maybe some Congressmen would vote for Oxley II in hopes of staving off Oxley I. But all these "compromises" are dangerous.)
Do I understand you correctly in that they are planing to double the dracoinian 5/10 year proposed penalties to 10/20 years?
Advice to undersigned firms: Tell your lobbyists to block //all// encryption legislation that might come out of Congress. Then fire them. Spend the millions of dollars on R&D. Get crypto in the hands of the grandmothers of America. Or if you're not going to fire your lobbyists, at least order them not to try and push a bill through. I know it's difficult; that's all they know how to do. But, you see, not only is such a plan doomed to fail, it likely will backfire and threaten all of our freedoms in the process.
I don't know if I should be happy or sad about Declan's recent tone of writing. "Forget about working /with/ DC". I certainly never wanted to be right. There was a time Declan at least hoped that /some/ good might come out of DC. It doesn't seem he thinks this anymore. Hell, Declan almost sounds like Tim a year ago. Will he contribute to the suitcase fund a year from now? BTW, sponsors wishing to remain anonymous have raised the pot to $820,000. This is by far the highest I have ever seen it. -- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"