Re: [NOISE] Re: Dorothy Denning attacks Leahy's crypto bill
At 03:35 PM 3/20/96 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Alan Bostick writes:
Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> wrote:
I may have to adjust my position on Leahy's bill. Any legislation that Dorothy Denning attacks so virulently must be worth passing.
That could be exactly what They want you to think!
Oh, God. This is really a bit too much, don't you think?
I mean, its obvious that, whatever its flaws, passage of the Leahy bill would be very bad for the export control droids.
I disagree, strongly. "Export controls" are worthless against the major characters they CLAIM they are intended to be directed at: "Terrorists, drug dealers, pornographers, etc." They'll get good crypto regardless, either from foreign sources or "illegal" export that happens anyway. The main attraction of export controls (to the govt) is that if they had been played "well," the government might have been able to foist some sort of Clipper-system on us indirectly, by building up a domestic market for crypto that is designed to be incompatible with the rest of the world, because nobody would buy the exports anyway. It didn't work, of course, but the Feds are still flailing away, trying to control the situation. In addition, the government really has no choice but to relax export controls, because of industry pressure. The result, I think, is that the Leahy bill does little or nothing for us that wouldn't otherwise happen in the next year. If that's the case, we win nothing and we compromise away our rights.
Has it occurred to you that the whole thing might not be a conspiracy and that the flaws in the bill might just be that -- flaws? Perry
This theory is easily testable. As I suggested a LONG time ago (gee, it must be at least a week now!) let's have a go at re-writing the bill to delete all the bad parts, modify it to be good, add appropriate extras to nail down everything, and present it to Leahy as the minimum acceptable bill. If those are just "flaws" then Leahy should have no trouble with any of this. If, on the other hand, it's all a fraud, we'll encounter fierce resistance. What do you think will happen? Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
At 03:35 PM 3/20/96 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Has it occurred to you that the whole thing might not be a conspiracy and that the flaws in the bill might just be that -- flaws? Perry
This theory is easily testable. As I suggested a LONG time ago (gee, it must be at least a week now!) let's have a go at re-writing the bill to delete all the bad parts, modify it to be good, add appropriate extras to nail down everything, and present it to Leahy as the minimum acceptable bill. If those are just "flaws" then Leahy should have no trouble with any of this. If, on the other hand, it's all a fraud, we'll encounter fierce resistance. What do you think will happen?
I think Leahy will, quite rightly, refuse to adopt the new bill because it has a snowball's chance in hades of passing, and it makes him look soft on crime and terrorists. But I'm sure Mr. Jim "legislative expert" Bell thought of this already and has 10,000 characters stored in a buffer just ready to dump into a letter which will dismiss this most basic of explanations.
Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
--- My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
participants (2)
-
dirsec -
jim bell