The export language comes from the origional Cantwell bill and orders the Commerce Sec. to allow export of mass market software and allows somewhat more limited export of non-mass market software dependng on what is available to banks in that country. Its not ideal (I think the limits on non-mass market should be the same as mass market- almost none except for a limited number of "terrorist" countries (we'd get killed if we argue that those should be eliminated) but overall much better than leahy's and somewhat better than goodlatte's bill. -d -------------------------------------- Date: 4/6/96 6:07 PM To: Dave Banisar From: jim bell At 01:22 PM 4/6/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 9:58 AM 4/6/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
[on the Burns bill]
That sounds okay as far as it goes, but I can see a potential problem. Your
wording above is unclear, but if the Burns bill totally eliminates export controls that's great. However, we've frequently heard talk of "compromises"
like the Leahy bill which seem to relate exportable encryption to that which
is already available overseas. There have been suspicions around there that
this is intended to keep the American producers out of the market as long as
possible, which is still a problem. I don't think that's acceptable.
I have no objection to the salami approach in this case. The way the Burns proposal has been described, it seems all together better than the current situation. We can fight the next battle after people realize that the four horseman are well and truly loose, and that the world hasn't ended. When the Burns proposal has been written up into a bill and introduced, I expect I will be writing my congresscritters asking them to support it
Myself also, I suppose. That's why I'm so concerned that it not contain any component that could be easily be re-written more to our liking. The big attraction of the Burns bill, from a strategic standpoint, is that (by the elimination of export controls, assuming it does it) it removes the one major "must do" task onto which could be loaded other "features" that we can't stand, as the Leahy bill tried to do. Once export controls are eliminated on crypto, it should become impossible to get enough support to pass a bill even mentioning key escrow, let alone mandating it. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by epic.org with SMTP;6 Apr 1996 18:06:34 -0500 Received: from ip8.van1.pacifier.com by pacifier.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #6) with smtp for <banisar@epic.org> id m0u5ggW-0008xbC; Sat, 6 Apr 96 14:42 PST Message-Id: <m0u5ggW-0008xbC@pacifier.com> X-Sender: jimbell@pacifier.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 14:40:21 -0800 To: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz),"Dave Banisar" <banisar@epic.org>, "Cypherpunks List" <cypherpunks@toad.com> From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> Subject: Re: ACM/IEEE Letter on Cryp _________________________________________________________________________ Subject: RE>>ACM/IEEE Letter on Cryp _________________________________________________________________________ David Banisar (Banisar@epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org Washington, DC 20003 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org