-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 12:17 PM 3/5/96 -0500, Voters Telecommunications Watch wrote: Dear Mr. Sadfar, By now I'm sure you've read a few items that I posted not only to you, but also to the cypherpunks mailing list, as well as the NWLIBERTARIANS@teleport.com list. I believe you have made a grievous error in your position apparently supporting the Leahy bill. As you presumably understand by now, based on your description of the bill it contains an extraordinarily serious flaw, in that it makes a new crime concerning the USE of encryption. Ostensibly, this is "reasonable," but I've already presented a scenario on Cypherpunks (also posted to you; as I write this it may not yet have appeared there, but I copied you) in which the government uses this provision maliciously to go after anonymous remailers. While that was merely a specific example, almost any service that protects the identity of its customers and allows them network access is potentially at a serious risk, because the US government has been known to fabricate a crime (for example, the "Amateur Action" BBS case from a few years ago) in order to make criminals out of non-criminals. As you have quoted it, Leahy's bill allows the government to, in effect, "stalk" a service provider (anonymous encrypted remailer, anonymous digital cash bank, Internet access provider, etc) and create a crime that involves the provider well beyond the standards described in this bill. The government can CREATE a crime, "to order" as it were, and snare the service provider in the net, despite the fact he has done nothing wrong. (In fact, he could be "guilty" even if there was no way, short of going out of business, to avoid the "crime.") This, I hope you agree, is totally unacceptable, but despite this, you said:
This provision only applies to you if you are using encryption to specifically foil a law enforcement investigation AND the communication relates to a felony AND you are using the communication to commit the felony. VTW feels this is a fairly narrowly drawn statute that is not likely to be easily abused.
Frankly, you made an error, and "it was a doozy!" But what I fear is that you will "dig your heels in" and hesitate to admit it, and continue on calling this "a good bill." You _would_ be right about that, except for the specific portion that is referred to above. (In addition, as Padgett Petersen noticed on Cypherpunks, that portion of the bill seemingly contains an error of phrasing, although we can't tell and we are depending on your quoting of that bill. Please verify that the quotation you made was accurate, and please carefully read that portion to see if you can identify the problem both Mr. Petersen and I observed. Since it just about reverses the entire meaning of the paragraph, it is vital to know what the actual bill said and meant.) I strongly recommend that you _DRAMATICALLY_ change the tone of your support: Please make it clear that your support for this bill is ENTIRELY conditional on removing the offending section. (I see little or no problem with your description of the rest of the bill, except for a few items I mention below.) I certainly invite any challenge you'd care to make to my reasoning and logic: If you feel I'm wrong in my estimation of what the government could do with that portion of the bill, say so and back up your analysis. If, on the other hand, you recognize that I'm right, or at least on the right track, I think you have a certain moral responsibility to ensure that this "wolf in sheep's clothing" doesn't get by the shepherd. Remember, in your press release you said:
VTW believes this legislation is an excellent initiative.
It would be far more accurate to say, "This legislation COULD BE an excellent initiative, if a short section were removed."
We predict that the White House will do everything in their power to prevent Senator Leahy from liberating PGP. He will need your help to push forward.
If this is REALLY true, then he will have to listen to our suggestions, right? People listen WHEN THEY HAVE TO CONVINCE YOU OF SOMETHING. Failing to make Leahy aware of what we consider terribly wrong with that bill would be irresponsible. If Leahy REALLY wants the bill passed, and "all" the potential supporters insist on the removal of the offending section, he will have no choice but to do so, since it has already been widely predicted that the administration will oppose it. If, indeed, they will oppose it, they will oppose it REGARDLESS of whether it contains that bad spot or not.
Over the next few months, VTW will be coordinating a coalition of names, many of which are already familiar to you. This coalition will ask you to call and write to Congress, expressing your opinion, and threatening to back it up with the ultimate legitimate weapon of democracy, your vote in this election year.
While I do indeed intend to vote in this election year, as you may be aware I believe there are other weapons the public will eventually be able to use against recalcitrant politicians and government employees of all types. The government is presumably well aware of my position, and it would certainly not be unexpected if they were desperately trying to avoid what I consider to be an inevitable conclusion. This particular bad section, in what is probably an otherwise-good bill, seems tailor-made to fight against developments that I think this society and "our" government can't avoid, and shouldn't avoid. I'm not asking you to endorse, or for that matter even acknowledge, my theories. However, you should at least take notice of the fact that Congress' motivations are clearly to maintain its power over the citizenry, and they will presumably act in predictable fashion to achieve this goal. We've already got them on the run; they can't pass Clipper and they knew they couldn't prosecute Zimmermann, and their position on ITAR is resoundingly criticized by individuals and industry alike. Most people agree that these rules have to change; it would be a tragedy if we "gave away the store" just to get a few trinkets. The fact is, this bill didn't have to contain the offending section, and it doesn't have to keep it. If we make our absolute opposition to that portion clear, who will stand up and support it? Only those people within government who secretly want this bill to pass, that's who! ____________________________________________________________
A FEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q: Wasn't Goodlatte one of the bad guys on the Communications Decency Act? Why is he sponsoring this bill, and can we trust him? A: Goodlatte did indeed introduce the fatal amendment that made the House version of the Telecomm Bill unsupportable. Nevertheless, VTW has found that a Congressperson's vote on one sort of bill is little indication of his or her stand on others. VTW wil closely examine any change in the language of the bill throughout its Congressional life.
Well, frankly, it looks like SOMEBODY managed to sneak in a pit into the cherry pie. (or a worm into the apple!) I wonder who could have done this? What do you want to bet that there aren't any fingerprints on it?!?
Q: Does this create a new obligations for key holders to disclose keys that they wouldn't have to comply with before? A: No. In fact, this bill makes it harder for a law enforcement official to retrieve a key from a key holder, by requiring a wiretap request instead of a simple search warrant.
In my opinion, key escrow agents should be required to inform THEIR CLIENT, the actual user of the key, BEFORE giving the key to the cops. They should also be obligated to fight any such request if the key holder requests it. (Remember, if key-escrow is really voluntary, then it is a contract between the encryption-user and the key escrow agent, and the encryption user should be able to put whatever conditions he wishes on that relationship. Presumably, he would not have entered into that relationship unless he was able to control the disposition of the key.) Furthermore, the cops should not be allowed to do any decryption of any material wiretapped before they possess the key itself. In summary, I think you really need to revisit your support for this bill. It is only a short distance away from being a good bill, but that is a trip we must make if we are to protect and even expand our freedom. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com Klaatu Burada Nikto -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMT5aHPqHVDBboB2dAQEACwP/eDky+Gi0kebbAWPYO9dX9HCQTzac3m3v YVyW4iEtGrQE78/Hmi4M2m9l4sDA3qOaFZtFhImRc4JVVWNy1Yp8JzTPbjESiB4M Q3ppLV7S9sQmYQnHIHbpJu9YVQ/j+cMIwp9tOI0FNLbXIKWhZz4t+6bfiqJWUgZK awsbDpXjYaU= =3HJl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----