Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup

X-POP3-Rcpt: declan@relay.pathfinder.com X-Sender: declan@mail.pathfinder.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 18:17:09 -0400 To: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup Sender: owner-fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu Reply-To: declan@well.com X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ Encryption is again bubbling to the surface of Washington politics. Today the Department of Commerce announced that it was creating a new committee to advise it on crypto-issues. A department official told me it would be composed of "businesses that export encryption," and interested parties have 15 working days to file comments. A way for the White House to split industry opposition and persuade high tech firms to buy into key escrow? Hmm... On the Hill, crypto legislation that would lift export controls is about to advance farther than ever before. (Last fall, Sen. Exon killed any chance that pro-crypto legislation had in the 104th Congress.) Rep. Bob Goodlatte's crypto bill (SAFE) will move to subcommittee markup next Tuesday at 2 pm in Rayburn 2237. After the full committee reports the bill, it moves to the international relations committee. Sen. Conrad Burns also would like to move forward with his Pro-CODE bill in May. Problem is, Goodlatte's SAFE bill, which has about 70 cosponsors, does more than just relax export controls and prohibit mandatory key escrow. It also creates new criminal penalties for using encryption to further a criminal act. Now, some say that it's innocuous -- and a good tradeoff for getting export controls lifted -- but I'm not convinced. When encryption is widespread and present in telephones, radios, cell phones, wireless modems, web browsers, televisions, and maybe light switches, *any use* of any electronic appliance will involve encryption. (Who wants a hacker playing with your toaster?) Remember that Maryland bill that would criminalize sending "annoying" or "harassing" email? If the Goodlatte bill became law, Marylanders who signed their messages with PGP or telnetted to local ISPs could be slammed with an all-expenses-paid trip to the Federal pen for five years. In other words, SAFE would turn state misdemeanors into Federal felonies. This is not good. A coalition of groups is sending a letter to Goodlatte tomorrow supporting the bill but expressing concern over the criminalization provision. Interested in signing on? Email David Sobel: sobel@epic.org. -Declan ***************** Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act (Introduced in the House) `Sec. 2805. Unlawful use of encryption in furtherance of a criminal act `Any person who willfully uses encryption in furtherance of the commission of a criminal offense for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of competent jurisdiction-- `(1) in the case of a first offense under this section, shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both; and `(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense under this section, shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both.'. ***************** Federal Register, April 24, 1997: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE President's Export Council Subcommittee on Encryption; Notice of Establishment The Secretary of Commerce has determined that the establishment of the President's Export Council Subcommittee on Encryption is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department by law. The Subcommittee will advise the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, on matters pertinent to the implementation of an encryption policy that will support the growth of commerce while protecting the public safety and national security. The Subcommittee will consist of approximately 25 members to be appointed by the Secretary to assure a balanced representation among the exporting community and those Government agencies with a mandate to implement policy regarding encryption. The Subcommittee will function solely as an advisory body. Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the establishment of the Subcommittee to Lee Ann Carpenter, Committee Liaison Officer, OAS/EA/BXA, U.S. Department of Commerce, MS: 3886C, Washington, D.C., 20230. Telephone: 202-482-2583. FAX: 202-501-8024. Dated: April 18, 1997. Sue E. Eckert, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [Thanks to JYA. --Declan] ------------------------- Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 18:17:09 -0400 To: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup
It also creates new criminal penalties for using encryption to further a criminal act ... Remember that Maryland bill that would criminalize sending "annoying" or "harassing" email? If the Goodlatte bill became law, Marylanders who signed their messages with PGP or telnetted to local ISPs could be slammed with an all-expenses-paid trip to the Federal pen for five years ... In other words, SAFE would turn state misdemeanors into Federal felonies. This is not good.
Ok. So it's kind of bad in this respect, but let's face it ... we can't have everything OUR way, the FIRST time around. Washington politics is just not that way (not that you need such a reminder).
A coalition of groups is sending a letter to Goodlatte tomorrow supporting the bill but expressing concern over the criminalization provision. Interested in signing on? Email David Sobel: sobel@epic.org.
Let's let the legislative process (whatever you think of it) take its course. I'll be happy even if they sneak some screwy secret committee on the final bill, as long as we are not subject to that committee or any other governmental body just because we allow ftp of C source code by our off-shore friends. Ern -- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer/Chief Cut And Paste Officer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua@chromatic.com

Ernest Hua wrote:
It also creates new criminal penalties for using encryption to further a criminal act ... Remember that Maryland bill that would criminalize sending "annoying" or "harassing" email? If the Goodlatte bill became law, Marylanders who signed their messages with PGP or telnetted to local ISPs could be slammed with an all-expenses-paid trip to the Federal pen for five years ... In other words, SAFE would turn state misdemeanors into Federal felonies. This is not good.
Ok. So it's kind of bad in this respect, but let's face it ... we can't have everything OUR way, the FIRST time around. Washington politics is just not that way (not that you need such a reminder).
Are you kidding? With the exception of export controls, we DO have it our way now. If we let them have it at all, we will NEVER have it our way. Any legislation at all, no matter what it says, is bad.
A coalition of groups is sending a letter to Goodlatte tomorrow supporting the bill but expressing concern over the criminalization provision. Interested in signing on? Email David Sobel: sobel@epic.org.
Let's let the legislative process (whatever you think of it) take its course. I'll be happy even if they sneak some screwy secret committee on the final bill, as long as we are not subject to that committee or any other governmental body just because we allow ftp of C source code by our off-shore friends.
Under no circumstances should any right or liberty be sacrificed so that we can export crypto. One of the principal reasons for export control is to prevent the widespread deployment of strong crypto IN the U.S. It seems they are willing to lift export controls if we all lie down and let them impose controls on domestic use. No thanks. Fuck RSA. Fuck Netscape. Fuck M$. I'm not gonna give up my ability to use crypto so they can make more money. -- Mr. E
participants (3)
-
Declan McCullagh
-
Ernest Hua
-
nobody@hidden.net