This morning, a private note from me to Declan -- part of an ongoing personal conversation between Declan, CDT, and his editors at Time -- was forwarded to several public lists. It was not, as some have assumed, an attempt to obscure the substantive issues he raised. Unfortunately, this whole thing explored before CDT had a chance to respond to Declan's questions directly. I hope that the points below will help to clarify the issues: 1. CDT, along with VTW, EFF, ATR and Wired, spent the last two weeks rallying Internet users to call the Committee in opposition to Oxley-Manton. We generated thousands of phone calls from constituents to the Committee, which we believe was a decisive factor in the defeat of Oxley-Manton. 2. CDT rallied support among the computer and communications industries, including many companies that have not yet weighed in yet on this issue. Opposition from the baby bells, along with companies who have in the past been favorable to the Administration's position (like IBM and TIS), probably made the difference in defeating Oxley-Manton 3. CDT did NOT support, nor work on, the White-Markey proposal. We strongly oppose the increased criminal provisions (as well as the criminal provisions in the original SAFE bill). We are also concerned about the role of the NET Center and the proposed liability limitations for key recovery agents (though we do not believe that any liability limitations were included in the final bill) 4. CDT continues to support efforts to relax encryption export controls. We believe that export relief is critical to promoting privacy and security on the Internet, both at home and abroad. We are steadfastly opposed to ANY domestic requirements, mandatory or "voluntary", to incorporate key-escrow, key-recovery, or other "immediate access" requirements. 5. We expect that all efforts to enact encryption reform legislation are stalled for the remainder of this year, and we do not support any effort to bring SAFE to the House floor. All our efforts are focused on stopping Congress from passing any bill in the foreseeable future, unless and until it is clear that domestic law enforcement access requirements will NOT be a part of any legislation. 6. We are not working for a "compromise" with the FBI or any other supporters of domestic encryption controls. We also recognize the realities of politics. No matter how much any of us might wish it to be true, members of the Commerce Committee were not willing to stand up and simply oppose everything. It was not in the cards. White and Markey offered them a chance to defeat Oxley while throwing a small bone to law enforcement. We believe that passage of SAFE with the White-Markey amendment, despite the problems with the criminal provisions, is on balance, a step forward in the fight for encryption policy reform. That's why we have described the vote on cryto.com as a "vote in favor of privacy". I do not expect that this will convince all of our detractors, but I do hope this clarifies the substance of Declan's criticism. As always, I am happy to respond to queries about CDT's positions and tactics, but I am not interested in engaging in public flame throwing. Best, Jonah * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt -- Jonah Seiger, Communications Director (v) +1.202.637.9800 Center for Democracy and Technology pager +1.202.859.2151 <jseiger@cdt.org> PGP Key via finger http://www.cdt.org http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger