At 11:43 AM -0700 6/24/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:

Yeah, I'm going to the markup later this afternoon. I ran into Goodlatte in the Capitol this morning; he seemed cautiously optimistic.

The terrible, terrible S.909 McCain-Kerrey bill is probably a negotiating card in the coming Grand Compromise. When even editorial writers for the Establishment Papers are against it, when industry is against it so vocally, it won't pass the full Congress. But it will have served its purpose. It will make many groups _satisfied_ to reach "a compromise we can all live with." The various cyber-rights [sic] groups will probably trumpet this as a victory, as "the best we could get." Somewhere between SAFE, a bad bill, and McCain-Kerrey, a reprehensible bill, lies the Grand Compromise. I reject it all. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

At 2:02 PM -0700 6/24/97, Eric Murray wrote:

Tim May writes:

...

It will make many groups _satisfied_ to reach "a compromise we can all live with." The various cyber-rights [sic] groups will probably trumpet this as a victory, as "the best we could get."

They will make it out as a victory ("send us more money") but in reality it'll just be a little less of a defeat.

I'd be willing to bet the cyber rights [sic] groups are preparing for the compromise and their role in the "victory." In this sense, the McCain--Kerrey bill is almost a godsend to them, as it allows them to forge a compromise and thus show that they are doing something useful.

The rejectionist stance has the presumption that, if unwatched, the government will pass a law so onerous that the people will rise up in protest. Unfortunately I don't think Americans will rise up in protest over _anything_ any more. Certainly not over basic freedoms.

Well, I know of some Americans who blew up a building filled with Feds. That ain't exactly doing nothing. I have to confess to not being completely unhappy with the McCain-Kerrey thing. By being so much of a Big Brother action, it validates what we've been warning about. And while _most_ Americans will not rise up in protest, as you point out, this will invigorate the extremist factions fighting for collapse of the entire corrupt system. (For we extremists, whom some have called "bloodthirsty," there's no better recruiting tool than such things as McCain-Kerrey. I've heard more of my friends saying that Congress just ought to be blown up than I ever would have imagined a few years ago. And this is not a view shared only by extremists: anyone who saw the coming attraction trailers for "Independence Day," last year at that time, was probably struck by the visceral and immediate audience reaction to the scene showing the alien flying saucers vaporizing and destroying the White House: cheers and clapping throughout the audience.) This will be a good thing. Just avoid soft targets, as I keep warning. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

At 4:13 PM -0700 6/24/97, Adam Back wrote:

Eric Murray writes:

...

As Declan notes, Congress is driven to compromise. The government side can propose ever more draconian laws in order to engineer the 'compromise' to whatever it wants. On the other side, we are stuck, because we have been asking for things that we really want, not bargaining chips. Even if we were to ask for bargaining chips that are more than we really want, how much further than completely free crypto can you go?

Oh I dunno. We could get Tim to give a congressional statement, highlighting the interesting consequences of a fully developed crypto anarchic society. That'd put the fear into them. ('Course the problem is we'd never get him to go within 100 miles of the place, and he'd probably consider it a waste of time talking to them anyway.)

Actually, I was born in Bethesda, just north or northeast of The Once and Future Swamp, lived in Maryland and Virginia for half my childhood, and attended Fairfax County High Schools (Langley, across the woods from the CIA, of course, and Edison). I've even back back several times, for conferences and visits; I even drove out to see the NSA in 1991, to help focus my energies. (Note: "focus my energies" should not be taken as a euphemism for shaping my charges.) But I don't get the point of what would be gained by my testimony. It wouldn't help the Cause. And, as many of us have noted, what is there to compromise about? If one has religious freedom, for example, and a series of laws are proposed or passed to limit this religious freedom in some way, what kind of compromise is even remotely acceptable? (By the way, I have no heard no good counters to my point that the "use of crypto in furtherance of a crime" is quite analogous to "freedom of religion shall not be abridged, but saying a heathen prayer in furtherance of a crime shall subject the heathen to an additional five years of imprisonment." This is why I think the "use of a special language or whispering in furtherance of a crime" provisions of SAFE will probably be struck down by the Supremes, unless they, too, have forgotten what the Constitution is all about.) The First Amendment is all we need to speak in the language of our choosing, including the languages of whispers, Talegu, Navajo, pig latin, coded signals, and 4000-bit RSA. We don't need any "reaffirmations" of this basic right, at least not from Congress. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May wrote:

I've heard more of my friends saying that Congress just ought to be blown up than I ever would have imagined a few years ago.

This is what I've heard referred to as the "_Debt of Honor_ scenario", referring to the Clancy book of that name. In it, an airliner was crashed into a joint session of congress. -- What is appropriate for the master is not appropriate| Tom Weinstein for the novice. You must understand Tao before | tomw@netscape.com transcending structure. -- The Tao of Programming |

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In , on 06/24/97 at 08:56 PM, Mac Norton said:

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Tim May wrote:

...

(By the way, I have no heard no good counters to my point that the "use of crypto in furtherance of a crime" is quite analogous to "freedom of religion shall not be abridged, but saying a heathen prayer in furtherance of a crime shall subject the heathen to an additional five years of imprisonment." This is why I think the "use of a special language or whispering in furtherance of a crime" provisions of SAFE will probably be struck down by the Supremes, unless they, too, have forgotten what the Constitution is all about.)

OK, Tim, I'll try: The use of communication in furtherance of a crime shall add five years . . .etc.

The use of any device to enhance the speed of communication in furtherance of a crime shall . . . etc.

The use of any device to disguise a voice in furtherance of . . . etc.

The use of any cryptographic means of communication in furtherance . . .

Now, if two and three above are constitutional, why aren't one and four?

Well in my IMNSHO none of the above are constutional. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM7EK7I9Co1n+aLhhAQGXzwP+Jj5LwyhYTk5j8u07UdRLzarj9AdWHLjj b6iI207LczqYi/1q/5mbOCty0j0HNqSdGdjvU1dYPH1Uqfn5BHjH8vU5RQvbLKnR uZSVhvMTb8BsDppGq2rJMGDP4gd/rCSIRdYXUUegWrcEG9Vxgov9nLj62YJ+wIMd Wj9NrP8vOEY= =UD2p -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 2:18 AM -0700 6/26/97, Adam Back wrote:

So you might argue that this would make the privacy lobyists seem more middle of the road. However crypto is binary, either it's free, or it's GAKked, so they (the privacy lobbyists) can't disavow crypto anarchy, because it's a consequence of the technology and legal frame work they want for privacy. There's nothing in between.

I of course agree that there's nothing in between, and that free and full access to strong crypto implies crypto anarchy (in some form, not necessarily full-blown anarcho-capitalism in all areas). I don't think massively publicizing crypto anarchy will serve to make the privacy lobbyists "seem more middle of the road." More likely, if Congress ever figured out what strong crypto really means, they'd ban it immediately. And if the Supreme Court ever figured it out, they'd uphold the ban.

My conclusion was that the crypto anarchy conclusions are pretty much in line with some of the NSAs scare stories and their spin is being used as an argument for GAK.

I agree. The NSA, FinCEN, etc., figured out the implications the same way we did. Maybe nobody in these agencies was very publically trumpeting them, for various obvious reasons, and maybe not as early as some of us were (1981-87), but they certainly reached the same conclusions in recent years. This doesn't mean we're not in a state of war with each other, though. They know that if we win, they lose. We know that if they win, we lose. Simple. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."