---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 07:26:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir@vtw.org> Cc: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary Shabbir, You're mistaken. I'm not "slighting their work" -- I called it a "solid improvement." Yeah, I know who shopped this around. I spoke with David and Don about this last week, and didn't write about it then for fear of jeopardizing their negotiations. And come on, you're "more than a little surprised" by my take? Give me a break. My position now is consistent with my position before -- and comes as no surprise. Reread my previous posts. But you're missing the point: this whole "crypto in a crime" section should not be in this bill in the first place. The new portion is much better than the old, but it still has no business being law. -Declan On Thu, 15 May 1997, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:

At 9:11 PM -0700 5/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:

...

* The heinous section of the law that would create broad new Federal felonies for some uses of crypto was replaced. The amendment, offered by Rep. Delahunt and adopted unanimously includes eight hurdles:

"Any person who, in the commission of a felony under a criminal statute of the United States, knowingly and willfully encrypts incriminating information relating to that felony with the intent to conceal such information for the purposes of avoiding detection by law enforcement agencies or prosecution..."

It's a solid improvement, but this language still has no business becoming law. Problem is, nobody seems to have the balls to stand up and yank it. Delahunt, the amendment's sponsor, said the bill without the amendment "could have a chilling effect on the development and use of encryption." He added: "I recognize that some supporters of this amendment would like that this section be removed altogether." But it doesn't seem likely.

I'm more than a little surprised at your take on this amendment. This exact language wasn't created by Representatives who don't know better, it was created, shopped, and marketed to the hill by the folks at the ACLU (Don Haines) and EPIC. In response to concerns from the net, they coordinated the letter from many groups to Goodlatte about the criminal provision which just about everyone signed onto.

Then, EPIC and the ACLU worked out the language above, and got it passed verbatim in response to the concerns of the net community. They did a great job here and really deserve a lot of kudos. Why are you slighting their work?

-S