unSAFE won't pass?
So, does anybody besides me think these crypto bills aren't going anywhere? I still think it's just a trick to get the original bill killed. No way are most congresscritters going to vote for this with all the opposition that's coming out. Just my opinion... "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, John Smith wrote:
So, does anybody besides me think these crypto bills aren't going anywhere? I still think it's just a trick to get the original bill killed. No way are most congresscritters going to vote for this with all the opposition that's coming out. Just my opinion...
At 09:07 PM 9/12/97 +0000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Don't be too sure. The national security establishment is swarming
on
Capitol Hill. They have momentum. SAFE and ProCODE are dead and gutted. The chair of House Rules is now eager to push SAFE to the floor for a vote. What, you think Clinton won't sign the new SAFE bill?
It may make for good copy, but I think it's just fantasy to think the administration or their opponents, for that matter, will get what they want this year. Let them swarm. Who cares. At earliest, August of 1998 before anything passes - and even that is highly optimistic. I predict shouting on the floors of both houses and maybe even a shoving match or two before this is settled. Early evidence of the passions stirred: my story at http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/inwo/0911/inwo0007.html. the atmosphere in that room was, to put it politely, charged. Another prediction: if the administration loses, you can count on a huge shake up at the top of the FBI. A defeat on this issue will make Ruby Ridge, Waco and Hoover's days of wiretap abuse and blackmail seem like the good old days. And since the FBI is playing front for what is now clearly White House intent - forget meaningless blather over what is "policy" and "not policy" - it will be the Fibbies who take the hits. Crypto wars? Hell, we haven't even seen a good border skirmish yet. Will Rodger Washington Bureau Chief Inter@ctive Week -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNBwEmdZgKT/Hvj9iEQLfnwCaAssvJsE+EtsJWajcJ2165Nu3MDwAnjvc lbGKZM43BEPPXFCD1Hj6jdEF =IGUz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Will Rodger wrote:
It may make for good copy, but I think it's just fantasy to think the administration or their opponents, for that matter, will get what they want this year. Let them swarm. Who cares.
At earliest, August of 1998 before anything passes - and even that is highly optimistic.
I agree with Will that we'll likely see shouting on the floor, but I'm not as convinced on the timing. Sure, it's incredibly unlikely that anything will pass both chambers this year. But will it take 11 months? The sequence of events could look something like this: By late September, the Commerce committee will vote on SAFE. By mid-October, the committee chairs should have worked out a compromise package. This goes to the Rules committee, chaired by Solomon. Until last week he vowed to block SAFE. Now he'd like, I'm told, to get the FBI's version to the floor immediately. There are, however, only so many slots on the suspension calendar. It's conceivable the House could vote on the bill this year, especially if they leave town later than anticipated and only if the version is the FBI's. (I think it's inconceivable that Goodlatte's version of SAFE could get to the floor anytime soon.) Whether this happens or not will depend on the Rules committee, the leadership -- and, most of all, behind-the-scenes maneuvering. The Senate, however, appears to be taking much, much longer. But I think that the national security/l.e. forces can move long before the end of next summer. -Declan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 06:22 PM 9/14/97 +0000, Vin McLellan wrote:
Will Rodger <rodger@worldnet.att.net> declared:
It may make for good copy, but I think it's just fantasy to think
the
administration or their opponents, for that matter, will get what they want this year. Let them swarm. Who cares.
At earliest, August of 1998 before anything passes - and even that is highly optimistic.
Will:
Could you please explain the logic, numbers, and procedural limitations of congressional action that lead you to this conclusion?
Sure. But let me throw in a simple caveat: politics is about people - _all_ predictions of what they will do are subjective.
Why not now?
With one month to go, there are a handful of things taking up time in Congress. The budget is the by far the largest one. Unless a bill is truly close to passing or the leadership has already evinced a desire to move on a bill - and they haven't - it's unlikely it will pass with so little time left. Also, there's no bill in the Senate that goes as far as what's moving in the House; even Dorothy Denning says mandatory KR gives here the heebie-jeebies under current technology. Simply put: crypto is an issue of truly enormous import. Congress will figure that out quickly once everyone has heard both sides of the issue.
Why not between now and August '98?
That's my general estimate of the time needed for a subject that is simply too complex for quick action. Look at telecom reform: it took a decade to do.
Why the deadline/target-date of August '98?
August recess. Getting something done far in advance of it just seems unlikely, but if it were close, the leadership might want to get rid of the issue before recessing. And don't forget that is an election year. No way do you want to go home and campaign with that issue still hanging fire. For that matter, a lot of people blamed crypto's slow progress on the whole of '96. If it isn't settled by August, I think you're definitely into 1999. Now, again, there's no scientific proof that Congress couldn't move before then. This is just my own estimate of the importance of this issue. Declan gets a fifth of whatever he fancies if this thing is settled before August 1998. Cheers. Will -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNByeBNZgKT/Hvj9iEQJVbQCeLJeumphJkcuN69HqQOjKRCYNWIAAoMBZ 6XhhObZfYne7rnlOX5Q8BThD =CXs+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 9:20 AM -0800 9/12/97, John Smith wrote:
So, does anybody besides me think these crypto bills aren't going anywhere? I still think it's just a trick to get the original bill killed. No way are most congresscritters going to vote for this with all the opposition that's coming out. Just my opinion...
The govt never plays just one game. This was for them a nice piece of judo, taking the momentum built up by the lobbying for SAFE, and redirecting it. Clinton would veto a "good" bill, and I seriously doubt that anyone ever thought a veto-proof "good" bill could be fashioned. The status quo has great inertia. Presidents prefer not to veto bills if they don't have to, though -- the most effective way to use a veto is to make the proponents of legislation trip over their own feet in trying to get a compromise. The administration also uses this process as a probe. Drafts are floated, and they get feedback. They learn where the congressfolks really are, see how effective the tried and true classified briefing is, see how effective the opposition is. Many positions can be tested with commitment to none because there's "internal conflict." It looks like no-lose for the administration. If unSAFE passes, they're ecstatic. If nothing passes, nothing changes. Export controls are still there, and the "voluntary" recoverable crypto initiative continues apace. Lee
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970912191654.10375N-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>, Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> wrote:
The status quo, combined with the court challenges, is not that bad.
Only if the court challenges get decided in our favour, and go all the way up the Supreme Court without being struck down. The current situation is terrible. I agree that it's unlikely that legislation will be able to be passed that would fix this. The court challenges, of course, move slowly. - Ian
Lee, of course, has it exactly right. This is why (in retrospect) the attempt to pass SAFE was doomed -- and dangerous. Crypto-advocates didn't have enough votes to override a veto and likely never will, as long as this is a "national security issue." If you're going to try the legislative route, elect a crypto-friendly president first. Maybe Ashcroft, one potential candidate, will be that fellow. Certainly Kerrey-with-an-e, also jockeying for the job, isn't. What the Net-lobbyists did was open the lid of a Pandora's Box they didn't have the strength to close. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Two people have griped to me in so many hours about how milquetoast and disinterested Silicon Valley is in crypto. They shouldn't have started something they didn't have the strengh to finish, especially if it has such dire consequences when perverted. Message to Net-lobbyists: look at what happened when this time. Please concentrate on blocking all crypto legislation, not trying to fix it. (Yes, I realize you won't have anything do with crypto, won't "be a player." Shucks.) The status quo, combined with the court challenges, is not that bad. -Declan On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Lee Tien wrote:
The govt never plays just one game. This was for them a nice piece of judo, taking the momentum built up by the lobbying for SAFE, and redirecting it.
Clinton would veto a "good" bill, and I seriously doubt that anyone ever thought a veto-proof "good" bill could be fashioned. The status quo has great inertia. Presidents prefer not to veto bills if they don't have to, though -- the most effective way to use a veto is to make the proponents of legislation trip over their own feet in trying to get a compromise.
The administration also uses this process as a probe. Drafts are floated, and they get feedback. They learn where the congressfolks really are, see how effective the tried and true classified briefing is, see how effective the opposition is. Many positions can be tested with commitment to none because there's "internal conflict."
It looks like no-lose for the administration. If unSAFE passes, they're ecstatic. If nothing passes, nothing changes. Export controls are still there, and the "voluntary" recoverable crypto initiative continues apace.
At 07:25 PM 9/12/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Lee, of course, has it exactly right. This is why (in retrospect) the attempt to pass SAFE was doomed -- and dangerous.
I hate to say this, but "I told you so". And I was not the only one. Nobody that subscribes to Cypherpunks can claim hindight. --Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56. http://rc5.distributed.net/
I told you so too: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1022,00.html -Declan On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Lucky Green wrote:
At 07:25 PM 9/12/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Lee, of course, has it exactly right. This is why (in retrospect) the attempt to pass SAFE was doomed -- and dangerous.
I hate to say this, but "I told you so". And I was not the only one. Nobody that subscribes to Cypherpunks can claim hindight.
--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56. http://rc5.distributed.net/
Declan McCullagh wrote:
I told you so too:
On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Lucky Green wrote:
I hate to say this, but "I told you so".
Please take this discussion to the "I Told You So" Website. Given the fact that the CypherPunks (TM) mailing list has long been one of the few sites on the InterNet where the future is regularly predicted, using 'logic' instead of 'magical thinking', an 'I told you so!' thread on the list could quite possibly result in such a monstrous increase in bandwidth use that the resulting meltdown might well threaten the whole future of the InterNet. The "I Told You So" website will send a weekly list out to all CypherPunks as an Archive. There is provision for you to insert text revealing what you 'told' and a number-box to indicate the level of snickering you are doing at those blind fools who will share your cell, but never 'expected' to be there. There is also provision for you to sign you name and email address. ( It defaults to "Tim May <tcmay@got.net> ) If creation of this new website surprises you, it shouldn't... I Told You So ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ !John Perry
Don't be too sure. The national security establishment is swarming on Capitol Hill. They have momentum. SAFE and ProCODE are dead and gutted. The chair of House Rules is now eager to push SAFE to the floor for a vote. What, you think Clinton won't sign the new SAFE bill? If the FBI/NSA just wanted to kill SAFE or ProCODE, there were much easier ways. Just have a committee chair sit on it forever. No, they're in this for keeps. -Declan On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, John Smith wrote:
So, does anybody besides me think these crypto bills aren't going anywhere? I still think it's just a trick to get the original bill killed. No way are most congresscritters going to vote for this with all the opposition that's coming out. Just my opinion...
participants (8)
-
? the Lunatic -
Declan McCullagh -
Declan McCullagh -
iang＠cs.berkeley.edu -
John Smith -
Lee Tien -
Lucky Green -
Will Rodger