Is the public involved in the crypto policy debate?

[Timothy C. May]

At 6:50 AM 4/26/96, Alex Strasheim wrote:
>>    In the United States and Europe, encryption policy is formed by a mix
>>    of interests. Advocates of business, national security agencies, and
>>    more recently the police -- all play a large role in the policy
>>    debate.
>
>Someone's conspicuously absent here:  us.

To be fair to Jim Bell, he made the same point a day or so ago.

I don't necessarily sift Stewart Baker's words for hermeneutical signs of
what the government is planning. He might just as well have included
"public opinion" in his list, and nothing would change.

And I'm quite sure that Baker, Denning, Nelson, et. al. are acutely aware
of the role of the "public" in these matters. The "public" as made manifest
in newspaper articles critical of Clipper, in "Wired" features against key
escrow and in favor of Cypherpunks-type themes, and so on.

While the "vocal minority" that rails against Administration policy in
sci.crypt, talk.politics.crypto, comp.org.eff.talk, this list, etc., are
not the public at large, we are certainly a part of the public.

I think the rejection of Clipper by "the public" is proof of this.

(If we were leftist theoreticians, we could debate for years or even
decades whether our movement is truly a mass movement, or just a vanguard
movement, etc.)

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay at got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."