Dole's cosponsorship of Pro-CODE was a way to land some California votes and a way to differentiate himself from Clinton, nothing more. A statement he released on May 2 bashed the White House: "The administration apparently thinks very little of the right to privacy -- it presumes the government is entitled to all the so-called 'keys' or secret passwords which protect computer generate [sic] information from prying yes..." I predict that if he were to win, we'd see the fastest policy turnaround ever. The moment he was inaugurated, Dole would pick up where Clinton left off. Clipper IV, here we come... But the benefit of having a pro-privacy statement in the platform (which in fact was watered down significantly from that originally proposed by advocates on our side) is that the platform covers Republican Party candidates for any office, not just the presidency. I'm told that the a Dem convention speaker may talk about privacy issues, however. -Declan Tim writes, quoting me:
Sure, the rhetoric might be slightly different under a Dole presidency. The focus would be on "halting the spread of abortion information on the Net" and "plotting by Communists using unbreakable cryptography."
(Contrast both parties with the Libertarians, which have a sterling commitment to online civil liberties, reflected in the platform approved at their convention last month.)
I certainly plan to vote for Harry Browne, their candidate, even if voting only encourages the process.
I first read Browne's stuff back in 1973, and, a few years later, his wonderful and "Zen Calvinist" (my term) book, "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World," which I still recommend to people. As far as I'm concerned, Browne is the strongest candidate ever fielded by the Libertarian Party.