-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Peter asked me to forward this. Here he makes a valuable point on political organization - something which helps explain why some people are more dire in their tone regarding the state of things here in Washington. Below's what he wrote. W. At 10:31 PM 9/14/97 -0400, Will Rodger explained his view that:

...

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.

In politics, unfortunately, you often have to act *as if* the other side is going to win soon. If you don't, they might. A great example was the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Everyone knew that it was too complicated for Congress to understand. Everyone knew that there were lots of powerful opponents to its elimination of many tax loopholes. But the darn thing passed anyways. Even supporters were shocked. The story is told in a very well-written book, "Showdown in Gucci Gulch." When considering what Congress will do, remember that there are 12,000 bills a year introduced in each chamber. Crypto is only one of many, many issues the Members of Congress need to consider. When things get too complicated, a politician might think it's just easier to go along with law enforcement. How many politicians lose by being tough on crime? As for the 1996 Telecomm Act, it's a bad example of what's likely to happen with crypto. That Act was fought between truly enormous companies -- RBOCS, AT&T, cable, etc. Those companies had enormous Washington offices fighting a life and death lobbying battle for years. In crypto, the good guys have nothing like the same lobbying resources. Unlike Telecomm, the very largest existing companies in the country will not lose billions next year if a bad crypto bill is passed. In short, it is quite possible that nothing will pass before August, 1998. It is quite possible by then that the issue will seem politically hot, and thus be dropped so close to an election. But the FBI position might win if we don't act *as if* mandatory key escrow is a real possibility. Peter Prof. Peter Swire Ohio State University College of Law mailto:swire.1@osu.edu http://www.osu.edu/units/law/swire.htm (revised site now includes publications and Internet Privacy Page) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNB1kfNZgKT/Hvj9iEQK7AgCePoF1G6fB1GhTTinh5U5pa1Q+t48An2gk RFszr9K29WkugUzhmyitgTG1 =Y4HO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Will Rodger Voice: +1 202-408-7027 Washington Bureau Chief Fax: +1 202-789-2036 Inter@ctive Week http://www.interactiveweek.com A Ziff-Davis Publication PGP 5.0: 584D FD11 3035 0EC2 B35C AB16 D660 293F C7BE 3F62 PGP 2.6.2: D83D 0095 299C 2505 25FA 93FE DDF6 9B5F