While I, on the other hand, am surprised by your over-optimistic tone. Bills in Congress are, technically, ALWAYS up for public comment. And yes, they are almost always subject to amendment. But the REALITY (remember reality?!?) is that once a bill has been officially introduced in Congress, it is substantially more difficult to add a good part, or remove a bad part, than if the bill remained on a word-processor or was simply put on the 'net for comments. The status-quo system might have made sense in the pre-Internet era, when the public familiarity of issues and/or legislation was less, or communication costs to the public were higher, etc. But today, when it's easy and cheap to put the text of a proposed bill on the Internet, it simply no longer makes sense to not accept public comment BEFORE the "high-hysteresis" environment of Congress has been entered. Here's what is REALLY going on. Congress wants to maintain the illusion that the public actually has some input into the way bills are drafted. But in reality, they want essentially total control. One of the many biases inserted into the system to ensure this control is maintained is to disguise the extent to which special interests (and Congress, itself, is a "special interest") get to dictate how law reads. Consider the alternative, and in particular the Leahy crypto bill, and even more particularly the portion of that bill criminalizing the use of encryption in a way which thwarts an investigation. Suppose the pieces of entire bill, before actual filing, had been publicly posted on the Internet, and there had been either a vote or at least a collection of comments about the individual proposed sections. What would have happened? That portion of the bill would have gotten flamed and rejected, with a large majority opposing it. Moreover, we would all have KNOWN that it had been rejected. At that point, if Leahy still insisted on including it, it would be tantamount to giving the 'net his middle finger, and we would have rightly lambasted Leahy, as he deserved. Moreover, we would have known that someone was pushing that part of the bill, and could reasonably insist that he is identified. But the way Leahy actually proposed it, in a package that had been put together in secret, it isn't clear how much Leahy detests our opinions, and he might actually have gotten away with foisting this on us. See the difference? An open system holds legislators to a much higher standard, which is why they don't like it and is why we should insist on it. An open system reveals to the public if their interests are being followed. An open system will allow more people to become aware of being screwed by politicians, maybe even before it happens, and it will allow them to reject legislative proposals which contain undesirable portions, particularly portions which are written into a bill despite opposition. _THAT_ could, hypothetically, become the "legislative process" someday. In fact, it SHOULD BE the legislative process. I consider the current system illegitimate to the extent (at least!) that it is biased against public participation. At 08:51 AM 8/27/96 -0400, John Raffetto wrote:

Jim -- I'm surprised by your message. Members of Congress rarely introduce bills and say take it or leave it. Rather, by introducing a bill, they're offering it up for public comment. After introduction, the bill is referred to a committee, and perhaps a subcommittee, where there are hearings and the like. The lobbyists swarm in, constituent letters roll in. Then the bill is marked up in committee, and emerges in a revised form.

If you want to vet a proposed piece of legislation on the Internet, then copy the text off of THOMAS and post it... then participate in the legislative process.

John Raffetto

...

I believe that it is particularly suspicious that these bills come into existance without even cursory "vetting" on the Internet. Both the Leahy bill and even the Burns crypto bill popped into public view without any indication of how they were written, or any public input on their intent and scope. Perhaps this "take it or leave it" practice is old hat to politicians, but frankly I'm disgusted at politicians' presumption that they can prepare a law with no identifiable input from the public.

I am similarly disgusted at any organization (even if, ostensibly, acting in support of "net freedom") that assisted in the development of the Leahy crypto bill (and to some extent, even the Burns bill) because they clearly failed to solicit the kind of public input that such bills should automatically get.

And in a sense, "the Net" doesn't NEED "strong supporters": what we need are politicians who are willing to LEAVE US ALONE! It should come as no surprise that the call you frequently see among net-freedom- supporters for new legislation is that which repeals existing restrictive laws, such as ITAR and censorship laws.

Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com

Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com