[87151] in Cypherpunks
Re: How the FBI/NSA forces can further twist SAFE
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Spirito)
Fri Sep 26 01:39:45 1997
From: "Paul Spirito" <berezina@qed.net>
To: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock@well.com>, "Declan McCullagh" <declan@well.com>
Cc: "Lucky Green" <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>, "Lee Tien" <tien@well.com>,
<cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>, <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:58:47 -0400
Reply-To: "Paul Spirito" <berezina@qed.net>
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>:
>>
That's why it may take close to a year -- perhaps until next summer -- =
for
Congress to finish compromising away your rights to use whatever =
encryption
software you like.
<<
And next year *is* an election year. If nothing awful happens, it =
shouldn't be much of an issue, but sooner or later there'll be a big =
bang made by terrorists who've used crypto in the plotting, & then =
anyone who opposed the FBI line will get drubbed, perhaps fatally (i.e. =
they'll lose their seat). The single "best" reason for congresscritters =
to support GAK is CYA; supporting American business isn't a sufficient =
counterforce, especially when "big business" has become a dirty word for =
much of the American electorate, the affected companies seem to be doing =
damn well, & they aren't old pros at lobbying. Dead babies are more =
dramatic than annual reports (even if -- as we all know -- GAK will do =
little or nothing to prevent terrorism &c. Fairness counts for little in =
political campaigns...)
I agree with Declan -- obstructionism is the only way to go. Let's =
review the current situation:
a) Crypto know-how is globally distributed & impossible to annihilate.
b) There are no domestic US restrictions on encryption development or =
use.
c) There are onerous US restrictions of export of encryption software.
From a cyberlibertarian/privacy advocate viewpoint this isn't so bad. =
It's true that lifting of export restrictions would get better crypto =
into more hands more quickly, but one doesn't have to be a Libertarian =
to believe that the market will fill that gap -- with non-US firms =
(possibly in collaboration with US ones) developing & marketing the =
technology; indeed, it's already happening.
From a US business viewpoint, the situation *is* bad. There's a =
temptation to sell out b) in order to improve c). I'm not =
conspiracy-minded, but one should beware of differences in motive, =
particularly as we enter a convoluted, lobbying-heavy phase. What makes =
me optimistic is that GAKed crypto isn't likely to sell. Other than =
that, we'd be doomed.
Hopefully, legislation can be delayed until foreign companies have =
widely deployed commercial strong crypto, & US companies are =
demonstrably (to the person in the street) feeling the pain. Then GAK =
will be obviously pointless and stupid. It'll cost US jobs, which hurts =
(me, as an American, most of whose friends are American), but it's the =
best we can hope for, I think.
Silicon Valley -- the Flint, Michigan of the year 2000?
Paul
ujgdejoxenotejotmbgtang ircpqbgluzstizg
