---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 19:51:28 -0700 From: Lee Tien <tien@well.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary Thanks to Barry Steinhardt for his comments, especially his saying that:

The language was an improvement , but it doesn't belong in the bill and we are still lobbying to have the criminalization provision removed.

All of us in the cyber liberties community need to watch this legislation very carefully. It could easily get much worse as a "compromise" is reached with the Administration. In the end,the bill could be laden with amendments on issues like key recovery that defeat our purpose of making strong and secure encryption generally available.

At some point, we may need to say that no bill is better than a bad bill.

This is a crucial point. This isn't an exercise in back-patting, in doling out kudos. This struggle engages a stubborn and devious foe. I also thought Michael Sims was on target in pointing out that Safdar's criticism of Declan were basically arguments from authority. Speaking only for myself, it's not enough to look at who's for and who's against. The Administration likes to say, trust us, we know what's best. We should say the emperor has no clothes if it's true. Some supporters of these bills seem to respond to substantive criticisms with comments about loyalty or solidarity. What's wrong with robust, open debate about substance? I don't assume that those on the "inside" have better knowledge or understanding of the law. If they're going to defend the bills on the merits, they should explain the merits. I don't assume that everyone agrees on what the bills should say. Some might think that some "willful use of encryption" provision is consistent with civil liberties. (Personally, I don't and I'm glad to see Barry feels the same way.) But my point is, let's be clear whether we're disagreeing about values or political tactics. Is a compromise acceptable because, all things considered, it's the best we can do, or because we actually agree on the merits? Finally, I do believe that the insiders better understand the political need for compromise. But I'd like to be educated about it. In particular, I'd like to understand why the President wouldn't veto any bill he doesn't completely agree with. Unless there's something veto-proof out there, or some other bargaining chip, why wouldn't he veto it? Lee