Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup

[Anonymous]

Ernest Hua wrote:
> 
> > It also creates new criminal penalties for using encryption to
> > further a criminal act ...  Remember that Maryland bill that would
> > criminalize sending "annoying" or "harassing" email? If the
> > Goodlatte bill became law, Marylanders who signed their messages
> > with PGP or telnetted to local ISPs could be slammed with an
> > all-expenses-paid trip to the Federal pen for five years ...  In
> > other words, SAFE would turn state misdemeanors into Federal
> > felonies.  This is not good.
> 
> Ok.  So it's kind of bad in this respect, but let's face it ... we
> can't have everything OUR way, the FIRST time around.  Washington
> politics is just not that way (not that you need such a reminder).

Are you kidding? With the exception of export controls, we DO have
it our way now. If we let them have it at all, we will NEVER have
it our way. Any legislation at all, no matter what it says, is bad.

> 
> > A coalition of groups is sending a letter to Goodlatte tomorrow 
> > supporting the bill but expressing concern over the criminalization 
> > provision. Interested in signing on? Email David Sobel: 
> > sobel at epic.org.
> 
> Let's let the legislative process (whatever you think of it) take its
> course.  I'll be happy even if they sneak some screwy secret committee
> on the final bill, as long as we are not subject to that committee or
> any other governmental body just because we allow ftp of C source code
> by our off-shore friends.

Under no circumstances should any right or liberty be sacrificed so that
we can export crypto. One of the principal reasons for export control
is to prevent the widespread deployment of strong crypto IN the U.S.
It seems they are willing to lift export controls if we all lie down
and let them impose controls on domestic use. No thanks. Fuck RSA. 
Fuck Netscape. Fuck M$. I'm not gonna give up my ability to use crypto
so they can make more money.

-- Mr. E