here's the text of a letter that i snail-mailed to california's senator dianne feinstein in early september: ---------------- Landon Dyer September 8, 1997 Campbell, CA Senator Dianne Feinstein United States Senate 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein, I am writing this to you because of some statements you made last week in a Senate Judiciary committee on the subject of mandatory key escrow for domestic encryption products. To be frank: I was shocked and sickened by your statement that "nothing other than some form of mandatory key recovery really does the job" of preventing crime. I urge you to seek out experts in industry and talk to them about why this approach is fundamentally unworkable. I urge you to re-read 1984. I urge you to remember the abuses of the Hoover FBI. Mandatory key escrow is extremely dangerous stuff. I do not believe the government should have this power because of the enormous potential and temptation for its abuse. (Corruption does happen. Remember the case in California recently where DMV employees were selling driver's license information to supermarkets?). And any repository of escrowed keys would be a very attractive target for break-ins Mandatory key escrow would cripple important parts of our nation's software industry. Why should we do this just to make law enforcement's job a little easier? Americans need better, more ubiquitous encryption, not less, to protect us from crime. We don't need Big Brother, and that's exactly what mandatory escrow would give us. Sincerely, Landon Dyer Sr. Software Engineer ---------------- here's feinstein's reply, which i received a couple of days ago. i've transcribed it pretty carefully, and left the typos intact with [sic], any other typos are mine: ---------------- October 23, 1997 Dear Mr. Dyer: Thank you for contacting me regarding federal encryption policy. I appreciate your taking the time to write to me on this issues [sic]. It is important for me to hear from my California constituents as this debate continues. As you know, numerous legislative proposals have been put forth to amend or restructure encryption controls. Cryptographic, or encryption, software uses complex algorithms to scramble information, thus providing greater privacy for the information. I read your recent letter on encryption and believe that the attached San Jose Mercury News interview correctly states my views. As we both know, this is a complicated and difficult issue which affects many California constituencies. I am open to suggestions as to how vital privacy rights and public safety needs can be supported and protected. I value your opinion and appreciate you actively contributing to this legislative discusstion. As Congress proceeds to debate various encryption proposals, I look forward to a thorough review of this issue. While I want to promote business opportunity for U.S. firms I do not want to do so at the expense of law enforcement. Once again, thank you your [sic] correspondence. I hope that you will continue to share your thoughts and ideas with me. If I can be of further assistance, please to not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at 202/224-3841 With warmest personal regards, Sincerely yours, (signed) Dianne Feinstein Enclosure [enclosed: the 15-Sep-97 SJ Merc article on D.F.'s crypto curb support] -------------- nothing terribly surprising, really -- i wasn't expecting any response at all, though -landon