---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 03:20:40 -0400 From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir@vtw.org> To: Jon Lebkowsky <jonl@onr.com>, "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar@wired.com>, Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>, sameer <sameer@c2.net> Cc: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: CDT Policy Post 3.08 - Senate Committee Approves Key Crypto Bill A little more of polisci 101: These 8 members of Congress didn't just vote in our favor here, they've placed crypto on an agenda at a higher level than something else they wanted to get through the committee. Imagine being Sen. Burns, and knowing that you have just placed your own agenda at risk in order to stand up for crypto, knowing there's a non-neglible chance you might lose. By sheer definition, you've placed crypto on your agenda higher than something else. Not only am I really damn happy to see this, but very happy to know that 8 senators think so little of the key recovery that they'd jeapordize their own agendas for it. We owe them a great big debt of thanks, not the derision that goes with Alice in Wonderland political punditry. -S At 8:40 PM -0500 6/19/97, Jon Lebkowsky wrote:

At 06:09 PM 6/19/97 -0800, --Todd Lappin--> wrote:

...

At 3:17 PM -0800 6/19/97, Jonah Seiger wrote:

...

But before we get all caught up in the old jihad between "the purists" and the "pragmatists", just think about this for a moment: If we are going to have a prayer of getting out of this Congress without getting stuck with manditory key recovery, we have to at least recognize where we fit in to the overall equation and how the system actually works.

I'd agree with this.

The reality is, we're in a bad, bad pickle right now. We've gone from a situation in which we're debating the finer points of a bill which probably would have helped us *overall*, to trying to defend ourselves from a bill that would make things far, far WORSE than they are right now.

This is triage.

S. 909 is the devil.

Yeah, it's frustrating. One problem with the bill is that the average person, or legislator for that matter, who reads the bill might not understand why it's a problem. Crypto should be better understood. I mentioned an imperfect analogy to Jonah today, but I think it works to convey the problem: it's like saying you can't live here unless you give the police access to a key to your house. And the immediate problems with that should be obvious: what if someone else gets access to the key where you've stored it for the cops? And what if the cops become storm troopers? When more copies of your key exist beyond your control, however supposedly secure they may be, that security is weaker than it would be if you controlled all the keys yourself.

Oh, well.

What's next on the menu?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jon Lebkowsky * jonl@onr.com * www.well.com/~jonl President, EFF-Austin =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=