Keep in mind that what you have is prepared testimony, written sometimes days before the guy actually speaks, often by his assistant. Often folks depart from it substantially; sometimes they ignore it completely. The most interesting part of a hearing is the back-and-forth q&a period where folks have to depart from prepared text and think on their feet. For that you need the transcript. -Declan On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, John Young wrote:
See William Reinsch's testimony on the administration's encryption policy at the September 4 SAFE hearing:
Perhaps dissimulating, or not then clued to the draft GAK bill, Reinsch states:
1. Foreign crypto products are not as widely available as export control critics claim, and thus do not threaten US products.
2. The administration is against mandatory key escrow.
3. Finds the SAFE bill unhelpful but likes its crypto-criminalization provision and favors McCain-Kerrey's Secure Public Network Act bill or other legislation that will:
Expressly confirm the freedom of domestic users to choose any type or strength of encryption.
Explicitly state that participation in a key management infrastructure is voluntary .
Set forth legal conditions for the release of recovery information to law enforcement officials pursuant to lawful authority and provide liability protection for key recovery agents who have properly released such information.
Criminalize the misuse of keys and the use of encryption to further a crime.
Offer, on a voluntary basis, firms that are in the business of providing public cryptography keys the opportunity to obtain government recognition, allowing them to market the trustworthiness implied by government approval.
----------
Leads to the testimony of NSA's Cowell and Justice's Litt would be appreciated.
Representative Weldon remarked at length about encryption and defense matters on September 4, supporting the administration's policy: