At 5:01 PM -0700 6/1/97, Robert Hettinga wrote:
At 9:05 pm -0400 on 5/31/97, Marc Rotenberg wrote:
Keep me posted. If legislation is threatening a good technical solution, I'll be the first to blow the whistle.
Bunk.
If you want Marc R. to read your message, you really should cc: him on it. I don't think he's subscribed to the Cypherpunks list (though I could be wrong). I am adding him back on as a cc: to this message (I would've cc:ed him on my original "Rotenberg as the Uber Enemy" message a few days ago, had I known he would join in the discussion later).
The actual contribution of Mr. Rotenberg and his organization to the cause of freedom on the net, in this country, and around the world, can be found precisely in a competant analysis of above bit of semantic nonsense. That is, it is nil, if not negative.
Actually, I plan to take Marc at his word if such a situation comes up and EPIC is still involved in such lobbying. For starters, the "all e-mail must have a valid return address" legislation already being proposed (I know of bills by Barbara Murkowski of Alaska, and Denny Smith of Oregon; there may be others) is not only "anti-liberty," in the libertarian sense, and in the Supreme Court sense (McIntyre), it is also a *disincentive* to various digital technologies. It would put remailers in the U.S. out of business (we think, though it depends on the precise language of what a "return address" really means...employment for entire floors of lawyers at the Internet Regulatory Commission, no doubt). 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. 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 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.) As I've said in other essays on SAFE, all that is needed to accomplish the goals of SAFE--the PR goals of SAFE, not the current language!--is this statement: "Computer software shall have the same status as any other written material: it shall not be subject to any laws regarding possession, sale, or export." Come to think of it, the First Amendment already states that Congress shall make no law. As for exports, the First has been applied to show that Congress cannot decide which books, magazines, movies, etc., may be exported. (And the Bernstein and Junger cases may soon consolidate the status of this interpretation for software.) So what do we even need SAFE for? Why give them any hooks, any "use of crypto in furtherance of a crime" language?
Given his past outrageous failures, and his persistant attempts to waste whatever reputation he now has left, remarks like the above finally prove the trust people had for him and the organizations he has run was completely misplaced. A reputation, I might add, literally *donated* to him by thousands of people and companies, who all believed in and trusted him *personally* to keep the Uncle Sam the Inquisitor out of their lives on the net. He has now squandered all of it with the demonstrable cluelessness found in the above bit of self-serving emeticism.
Bob actually makes me appear charitable toward Marc! I agree with Bob that EPIC, CDT, VTW, EFF, CPSR, and the other alphabet soup players are just plain old lobbyists, pure and simple. Who they are lobbying _for_ has never been clear to me, despite their public statements and charters. 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 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."
Tim May has said it here before, but it bears repeating. The way a "lobbyist" stays in business is to threaten an otherwise innocent group of people with the power of real or imagined legislative coersion. The "constituents" then pay extortion to the legislature in the form of outright campaign contributions through a political action comittee, or by showing up at "voluntary" fundraisers on behalf of collusionary legislators, or through soft-dollar labor ("research", for instance) that ....
(good explanation of D.C. politics elided) Every one of the 535+ Congresscritters has a large staff (dozens? multiple dozens?), whose purpose is to feed the machine. As Bob notes, when funds gets low the legislators can threaten legislation. They may even convince themselves its a good idea. And they have various other contributors and pressure groups jockeying for laws and favors. It's all very nearly hopeless. And the cancer has spread nationwide. Just in my local community there are half a dozen jurisdictions, several "City Halls," multiple police forces (overlapping in territory covered), hundreds of new and byzantine rules every month, more fees, more inspectors, etc. As but one example, we're drilling a new well to replace our old well....the County wants $1000 to send a guy out to nod his head and initial our request--and with no guarantee they'll approve the well. More fees are needed for that. This is just plain robbery, though pro-government folks would likely say it is some kind of "pay as you go" reform (as in "We have a 6-story County Administration Building and 753 people on the payroll to pay for...so why shouldn't we extort a grand from you to help pay for it?"). There are so many laws it's impossible to know which laws I'm breaking. I carry a Benchmade AFCK folding knife clipped to my pants pocket. In Santa Cruz proper the law says that such a knife is considered "concealed" if clipped so that only the clip shows, whereas in Santa Cruz County, outside the city limits (though maybe the laws just cancel out inside?) the interpretation allows knives to be carried in pockets. And in some other local areas, the clip doesn't have to be visible. (And in some places, a knife worn "openly" is considered "brandishment.") Further, violations of these confusing and often contradictory knife laws are _felonies_, not misdemeanors (the felony status of knife law violations, where gun violations are often misdemeanors, is said by experts in rec.knives and in my gun magazines to come from the time when "niggers and spics" carried switchblades, concealed knives, dirks, buckle knives, etc., while "gentlemen" carried derringers and small revolvers for protection...so the law came down hard on the knife-carrying spics and niggers and the heritage is with us today. It's getting to where I need a CD-ROM and GPS mounted in my truck telling me: "You are about to cross into the jurisdiction of Burgville, California. The following items are illegal and must be disposed of or moved to a locked container: ..." This explosion of rules, statutes, licenses, laws, regulations, and limitations is being fed by the multiple City Councils, Boards of Supervisors, County Commissioners, City Managers, and hordes of burrowcrats (sic, and sick, too) infesting the multi-story "government" buildings in every small town and county. Not to mention entire cities devoted to lawmaking, like Sacramento, Albany, Washington, etc. The simple question to ask is this: Why do we need several thousand rule-generating and lobbyist-seeking governments? Why do we need governments at the neighborhood level, the township level, the city level, the county level, the state level, and the national level? (And the meta-national level, with the U.N, World Court, OECD, etc.) I could comment more on Bob's other points, but I think you all get the picture. Things are way out of control. Not because of any intrinsic evilness on the part of the bureaucrats, but just for purely systemic reasons. This has to change, and it can't be changed from within....the rules won't allow it. The change has to come from outside, probably from some severe jolts applied to the system. No, I don't mean blowing up Washington, or even a few buildings. Much as I might like to see D.C. vaporized, such jolts are not what I am thinking of. Undermining the institutions of government with strong crypto is one of the jolts. There are others. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."