Re: Why no action alert, coalition opposing S. 974?

Many of the leaders of the major net civil liberties organizations have made
statements concerning SB 974. They seem to agree that no action alert
or coalition on SB 974 should be formed at this time.

Some of the statements about SB 974.

"Silly Bill"
"not going anywhere"
"subcommittee hearing not set yet"
"premature"
"inflammatory distraction"
"campaign is unlikely to be successful"
"the bill is doomed"

I remain concerned about this bill and am not satisfied with the response
to this bill.

Exon was a silly bill, but it passed the Senate by a wide margin.
How can a campaign to stop the bill not be successful if the bill
is not going anywhere? Perhaps we need to have a success to
gain momentum. The people on the subcommittee are going to be very
important as the rest of the Senate will consider them to be the "experts".
Since the net is esoteric to most people there will be a strong tendency
to depend on the "experts". The best time to persuade these "experts"
will be before they make any public statements about the bill in the
subcommittee hearings and their positions are locked by pride not 
wanting to publicly change their positions. Thus we should be contacting
these people now, and we may have a chance to nip SB 974 in the bud.

By the way, what subcommittee was it sent to? I understand it was
one of the subcommittees of Judiciary but no one said which one.
Because there is no action alert, people do not know what States 
have the senators on the sub-committee. People from these States
are the ones that should be especially encouraged to contact their Senators.

In any case, it is clear that if any significant action on SB 974 will
be taken at this time, the CYPHERPUNKS will have to do it. The major
net civil liberties organizations have bowed out for now.

Are there any cypherpunks out there who can help? Perhaps someone
has writing skills that would be willing to write an action alert?
Perhaps someone knows which subcommittee it was sent to?
Since SB 974 hobbles our right to use encryption, the cypherpunks
should be especially interested in opposing it.

-- 
Paul Elliott                                  Telephone: 1-713-781-4543
Paul.Elliott@hrnowl.lonestar.org              Address:   3987 South Gessner #224
                                              Houston Texas 77063

We've not "bowed out" on this bill, it's just not significant enough a 
threat (yet) to warrant stirring up a lot of activism about it - which 
would detract from the focus on the CDA and it's clones.

We'll be tracking this bill and will certain help form a campaign against 
it if it looks to be going anywhere. In the mean time, we're issuing an 
analysis of it, and will keep the net informed.

--
<A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/">          Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org">        mech@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/">         Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P>   Online Services Mgr.

> 
> We've not "bowed out" on this bill, it's just not significant enough a 
> threat (yet) to warrant stirring up a lot of activism about it - which 
> would detract from the focus on the CDA and it's clones.
> 
> We'll be tracking this bill and will certain help form a campaign against 
> it if it looks to be going anywhere. In the mean time, we're issuing an 
> analysis of it, and will keep the net informed.
> 

Sun Tzu in his classic _The Art of War_ says:

"Therefore those who win every battle are not really skillful--those
who render  others armies helpless without fighting are the best of
all.

The superior militarist strikes while schemes are being laid. The
next best is to attack alliances.  The next best is to attack the army."

"To unfailingly take what you attack, attack where there is no defense.
For unfailingly  secure defense, defend where there is no attack.

So in the case of those who are skilled in attack, their opponents do not
know where to defend. In the case of those skilled in the art of defense,
their opponents do not know where to attack."

"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely 
mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be 
the director of the opponent's fate.

To advance irresistibly, push through their gaps. To retreat elusively,
outspeed them."

I am afraid that if those who favor network freedom to not apply
Sun Tzu's principles we may be defeated. What are we doing to
"attack while the schemes are being laid?" If we were to provoke
opposition now in the beginning, it would create the impression
that if the bill were to become a threat, then there would be furious
opposition. We have a chance to win by indirection. But we are loosing
it by inaction. Sun Tzu recommends the use of spies, but because
the net civil liberties organizations are inactive, we are deprived of 
our spies. We do not even know which subcommittee it has been sent to.
We do not know which Senators we should direct the pressure to.

I am now making inquiries from here in Texas (through the offices
of the Texas Senators) as to what subcommittee. But it may take
a while. But this information should be easily available to organizations
like EFF and VTW. It should be in an action alert so that people like
me here in Texas do not have to search for it using non-optimal means.

If anybody knows which subcommittee the bill has been sent to, please
tell me.

-- 
Paul Elliott                                  Telephone: 1-713-781-4543
Paul.Elliott@hrnowl.lonestar.org              Address:   3987 South Gessner #224
                                              Houston Texas 77063

[From http://www.cnu.edu/~patrick/taoism/suntzu/suntx10.txt]

Sun Tzu?  SUN TZU you say?

>5. The general, unable to control his irritation,
>    will launch his men to the assault like swarming ants,
>    with the result that one-third of his men are slain,
>    while the town still remains untaken.  Such are the disastrous
>    effects of a siege.

Let's not lay siege to this bill prematurely.  Should we call grass roots
supports too early, people will become aggravated with being asked to
act on bills that aren't really a threat.

> 6. Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's
>    troops without any fighting; he captures their cities
>    without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom
>    without lengthy operations in the field.

Let's give the DC folks a chance to convince *those that control the
Congressional schedule* to keep this bill from going anywhere.

>17. Thus we may know that there are five essentials
>   for victory:
>   (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when
>       not to fight.

Now is not the time to fight this with "call in campaigns".  We haven't
even had time to digest the analyses.  Sure we understand the crypto part,
but should we call Grassley's office, you'll probably get back, "but there
are so many other holes in current law that this bill fixes, how can
you be opposed to it?"

Unaware of the rest of the bill, we'll be caught flat footed.

Look, every net-civlib group in DC is committed to the availability of
strong crypto.  There isn't a one of them who has ever ignored a fight
yet against crypto restrictions.  If several of them (who have really
good resources inside the capital, better than all of us) say that
the bill is NOT going anywhere, and that the best thing to do right now
is to study it and get ready in case it does move, what better
information do you have that convinces you that they're wrong?

We should read the bill, and we should be pissed.  But calling the wrath
of the net down on this bill is wasteful at this stage.  Sure it may get
thrown in as an amendment, that's always possible.  But if that's Grassley's
strategy, no amount of call-in support is going to help, because nobody,
not even that Senator you just called who promised you s/he opposes
AER will know what happened until it is too late.

Let's read the bill and get ready for a fight.  We should hold Grassley
accountable for this next election.  But we're spinning our wheels by
acting against every bill that affects one of our issues.

-Shabbir

> Let's read the bill and get ready for a fight.  We should hold Grassley
> accountable for this next election.  But we're spinning our wheels by
> acting against every bill that affects one of our issues.
> 
> -Shabbir

I'd agree with the gist of Shabbir's entire message, except the last 
sentence, which I think needs some qualification.  Trying to fight every 
useful fight right now *is* counter-productive, because we're not at a 
stage yet where any of our organizations, or our coalitional 
meta-organization, can handle the load.  And the grassroots activist
infrastructure of the net can't handle it either.  But, that's not the 
way it should be.  We need to, and if we all work at it, we will, get to 
the state at which we can handle the load, and can fight all the good fights.

Part of what's needed is, frankly, for folks like those reading this 
message to take a little time out from endless arguments on newsgroups 
and mailing lists, from all the entertainment and fund, and become a 
little more politically active so we can preserve the possibility of 
having any fun at all.  How many of you are organizing groups like 
EF-Houston or VTW or SEA on a local or state basis?  I don't imagine many 
virtual hands are raising.  Hop to it folks.  This is no a 
one-dimensional fight, it's three dimensional.  You've got lobbying and 
national-level policy work being done, but local grassroots organizing 
via the net is still in a larval stage, and needs to be advanced. So does 
coordinated response to crap journalism and lack of serious coverage of 
the issues we find important.  Get in touch if you're interested in 
helping start local groups.  I'll keep a geographical list and try to put 
fairly close matches in contact with eachother.  


--
<A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/">          Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org">        mech@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/">         Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P>   Online Services Mgr.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

OK, OK, OK--

Robbie Westmorland has persuaded me that an action alert before
the bill has been "calendared" could be counterproductive. The reason
is that until the bill is scheduled to come before a committee, many
do not know it exists, and we do not want to tell them! There is a
possibility that the bill might be quietly forgotten about, up to the time
that it is "calendared".


Is there any reason we could not prepare an action alert in advance
to be released immediately when/if it is scheduled to come before
a subcommittee?

- -- 
Paul Elliott                                  Telephone: 1-713-781-4543
Paul.Elliott@hrnowl.lonestar.org              Address:   3987 South Gessner #224
                                              Houston Texas 77063

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAgUBMBKzH/BUQYbUhJh5AQFOYQQAjZoFcyAAvncyuwG/fS76gdVuQp5ZrF/M
sHgRk6sRgOKkl0qLBZKlTD14y00r1LaUXgncdJ81usArj7wV+l38Y10+3YALRtl+
RtyqAdeND4rGLgx940juVbnNzMEC8bq4xQJYHUZSFXSrJmEqw0+CmOuMKPrDn44z
4Dcvhg1n94M=
=tibc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Paul Elliott writes:
> The best time to persuade these "experts"
> will be before they make any public statements about the bill in the
> subcommittee hearings and their positions are locked by pride not 
> wanting to publicly change their positions. Thus we should be contacting
> these people now, and we may have a chance to nip SB 974 in the bud.

Sen. Kyl (Arizona) became a co-sponsor of S.974 yesterday (7/20/95). He,
at least, appears to believe the bill is still heading somewhere.

(Ref: Congressional Record, pg. S10427)

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 21 Jul 95 8:46:26 -0600,
Paul Elliott <paul.elliott@hrnowl.lonestar.org> wrote:

> Many of the leaders of the major net civil liberties organizations have made
> statements concerning SB 974. They seem to agree that no action alert
> or coalition on SB 974 should be formed at this time.  [...]

> I remain concerned about this bill and am not satisfied with the response
> to this bill.

Your points are well taken, but I'm still in favor of concentrating
on the Exon bill until such time as SB 974 shows any signs of support
from other politicians.  Both bills are preposterous, of course:
unconstitutional and unenforceable.  There's one particularly absurd
aspect to SB 974 that I haven't seen mentioned on the Cypherpunks
list, possibly because it goes without saying.  I'll say it anyway,
first quoting the relevant portion of the bill:

`Sec. 1030A. Racketeering-related crimes involving computers
 `(a) It shall be unlawful    [...(1) snipped -- ADW]
 `(2) to distribute computer software that encodes or encrypts
      electronic or digital communications to computer networks that
      the person distributing the software knows or reasonably should
      know, is accessible to foreign nationals [...]

One area where the U.S. has retained strong international competitiveness
is its colleges and universities.  The number of these institutions that
have no foreign nationals enrolled is *damn* small, and largely comprises
"Ace's Truck Driving College" and the like.  Foreign nationals who are in
this country to attend college are exempt from the usual I-9 employment
restrictions; hence, many are also employed at full-time summer jobs,
internships (in government or the private sector), teaching assistantships,
or work-study positions, which may involve access to computer networks.
(Many foreign nationals complete medical residencies in U.S. hospitals,
for example.)

Preventing these people from having access to crypto software is simply
impossible.  This bill would make criminals out of thousands of network
administrators and MIS types, simply for having crypt() or Norton Diskreet
around.  If the bill gains any momentum whatsoever, I expect howls of
protest from the academic world.  I'm not sure a megabuck lobbying effort
by private industry will be necessary:  letters from Computing Services
honchos at some prestigious schools/hospitals/corporations should induce
even the most technically clueless congressdroids to pull their heads out
of their asses on this issue...(OK, maybe not Jamf-^H^Hes Exon, but enough
of 'em to prevent the bill's passage.)

Anyway, I'm glad nobody's suggested a Cypherpunk SB 974 infomercial,
financed "by each according to his ability to pay," as happened during
the Clipper debate...maybe the list *is* evolving...:-)

OK, back to your regularly scheduled Trans- and Cross-Continental Realtime
Virtual Kneecapping & Interface Flamefest, a perennial Cypherpunk favorite!


Alan Westrope                  <awestrop@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
__________/|-,                 <adwestro@ouray.cudenver.edu>
   (_)    \|-'                  2.6.2 public key: finger / servers
PGP 0xB8359639:  D6 89 74 03 77 C8 2D 43   7C CA 6D 57 29 25 69 23

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMBAh3FRRFMq4NZY5AQGDswP+KwtgTTnZszFOsHAUIqM/UEftkBLmnKJs
kyFnhnqyYk+Oe2CS7pqjrV36O3XqvnFvJx6RzPdCgcR1J97ytjP7izACLoYHSjVR
Fzsedf5SxynppZqAlTMz1dWozyO28F0RcTvmPG+Aid0EtXOgdii90MCH93Z7XC4o
iViIX46al84=
=519b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----