"Dear Newt" Letter...

My, *this* looks interesting...


Cheers,
Bob Hettinga



--- begin forwarded text

Date: 20 Nov 1995 11:21:01 -0800
Subject: please fwd to cpunks if you
To: "Bob Hettinga" <RAH@shipwright.com>

     The Ad Hoc Taxpayer Coalition for Computer Privacy

                     November 8, 1995

The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House of Representatives
H-232 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515-6502

Dear Mr. Speaker:

 We are writing to express serious concerns about the
Administration's efforts to continue to restrict the ability
of computer users at home and abroad to protect their personal
and private information over electronic networks through the
use of encryption technology. The Administration seems
determined to ensure government surveillance of all electronic
information and communications. It began with President
Clinton's "Clipper Chip," but has not stopped.

 Consumers aren't happy with these proposals, and neither is
the business community nor civil libertarians. In fact, it's
hard to find anyone supportive outside the Administration
except for the few that would benefit from the
Administration's "proposed relaxation" of the nation's export
policy.

 The Administration refuses to let American computer hardware
and software companies sell products with good encryption
worldwide unless the U.S. Government is guaranteed access to a
key that unlocks that information. The Administration is
trying to leverage these companies' need to export -- they
derive more than half their earnings from sales abroad -- and
desire to develop a single product worldwide, to force them to
include a feature in products they sell in the U.S. and abroad
that will allow government access. Administration officials
also have said that if American companies do not "voluntarily"
include such a feature, then they will seek legislation making
such a feature mandatory.

 The Administration's approach is the wrong policy for today's
marketplace.

 It's anti-consumer. Computer users will not entrust their
sensitive information to computer networks unless its security
and privacy are assured. Without good privacy protection,
there simply will not be a Global Information Infrastructure
-- and America won't be in the lead.

 It's anti-marketplace. There is no consumer demand for
encryption products that give the government easy access. The
Administration has come forward with a typical big-government
approach -- a government designed solution for a government
problem. This completely overlooks the realities of a
free-market.

 It is anti-American business. The Administration's current
policies are seriously harming the continued competitiveness
of one of our fastest growing and most successful industries
-- the computer hardware and software industry. Computer users
are demanding good encryption but American companies are not
allowed to supply it. Yet there are hundreds of foreign
encryption products manufactured and encryption programs are
widely available on the Internet.

 Finally, it is anti-progress. Wishing that there was no
encryption available will not make it so. The technology is
widely understood and available -- you can't put this genie
basic in the bottle. Government policies should not encumber
the American computing industry as it leads the world
technology revolution.

 We strongly urge you to oppose attempts to limit the ability
of Americans to use whatever encryption they wish and to
support the immediate relaxation of harmful export controls on
American products and programs with encryption features.


     The Ad Hoc Taxpayer Coalition for Computer Privacy

Americans for Tax Reform
Association of Concerned Taxpayers
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Citizens for a Sound Economy
The Business Leadership Council
The Small Business Survival Committee
Citizens Against a National Sales Tax/VAT

Virginia Postrel, Editor, Reason magazine
Sheldon Richman, Senior Editor, The Cato Institute
Tanya Metaksa, Executive Director, Institute for Legislative
 Action, National Rifle Association
Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, The Polling Company
Donna Matias, Institute for Justice

=+=+=+=+
This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle
Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA.

This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is
available at any of the following URL's: http://WWW.NRA.Org,
gopher://GOPHER.NRA.Org, wais://WAIS.NRA.Org, ftp://FTP.NRA.Org,
mailto:LISTPROC@NRA.Org (Send the word help as the body of a message)

Information may also be obtained by connecting directly to the
NRA-ILA GUN-TALK Bulletin Board System at (703) 934-2121.

--- end forwarded text


-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA (617) 958-3971
"Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell
The e$ Home Page: http://www.webstuff.apple.com/~vinnie/Rah
>>>>Phree Phil: Email: zldf@clark.net  http://www.netresponse.com/zldf <<<<<

*** FLAME ON ***

Quoted in complete context for your protection:
> --- begin forwarded text
> 
> Date: 20 Nov 1995 11:21:01 -0800
> Subject: please fwd to cpunks if you
> To: "Bob Hettinga" <RAH@shipwright.com>
> 
>      The Ad Hoc Taxpayer Coalition for Computer Privacy
> 
>                      November 8, 1995
> 
> The Honorable Newt Gingrich
> Speaker of the House of Representatives
> H-232 The Capitol
> Washington, DC 20515-6502
> 
> Dear Mr. Speaker:
> 
>  We are writing to express serious concerns about the
> Administration's efforts to continue to restrict the ability
> of computer users at home and abroad to protect their personal
> and private information over electronic networks through the
> use of encryption technology. The Administration seems
> determined to ensure government surveillance of all electronic
> information and communications. It began with President
> Clinton's "Clipper Chip," but has not stopped.

Whoa!  Clinton didn't start the Clipper initiative.  Try Ragan/Bush!

Administration's efforts - hardly.  They inherited and mostly agreed

computer users at home and abroad - not according to what I've seen and
read - they want to stop export of good crypto, not internal use thereof.
It's the FBI that wants to read all your email and tap your phones.  The
administration is just going along as far as I can tell, and so is Newt.

>  Consumers aren't happy with these proposals, and neither is
> the business community nor civil libertarians. In fact, it's
> hard to find anyone supportive outside the Administration
> except for the few that would benefit from the
> Administration's "proposed relaxation" of the nation's export
> policy.

The vast majority of consumers don't care as far as I can tell.  Same
with most of the small business community (the vast majority of the
whole business community in the US).

>  The Administration refuses to let American computer hardware
> and software companies sell products with good encryption
> worldwide unless the U.S. Government is guaranteed access to a
> key that unlocks that information.

Dead flat wrong.  What is required is an export license, and they are
attainable.

> The Administration is
> trying to leverage these companies' need to export -- they
> derive more than half their earnings from sales abroad -- and
> desire to develop a single product worldwide, to force them to
> include a feature in products they sell in the U.S. and abroad
> that will allow government access.

What's your basis for this conclusion? They have not said so as far as I
can tell. 

> Administration officials
> also have said that if American companies do not "voluntarily"
> include such a feature, then they will seek legislation making
> such a feature mandatory.

Which ones said exactly what?

>  The Administration's approach is the wrong policy for today's
> marketplace.

Finally something I agree on.

>  It's anti-consumer. Computer users will not entrust their
> sensitive information to computer networks unless its security
> and privacy are assured. Without good privacy protection,
> there simply will not be a Global Information Infrastructure
> -- and America won't be in the lead.

I don't think most consumers care at all unless and until it directly
affects them in a way they can see and understand the connection with. 
There already is a GII, America is in the lead in some areas, and the
privacy issue is not a very important one judging by the vast majority
of users who use it regardless of and in ignorance of privacy protection.

>  It's anti-marketplace. There is no consumer demand for
> encryption products that give the government easy access. The
> Administration has come forward with a typical big-government
> approach -- a government designed solution for a government
> problem. This completely overlooks the realities of a
> free-market.

There is almost no consumer demand for encryption.  The demand that
exists is primarily business and government, and the government side
seems to think Clipper is a good idea.

>  It is anti-American business. The Administration's current
> policies are seriously harming the continued competitiveness
> of one of our fastest growing and most successful industries
> -- the computer hardware and software industry. Computer users
> are demanding good encryption but American companies are not
> allowed to supply it. Yet there are hundreds of foreign
> encryption products manufactured and encryption programs are
> widely available on the Internet.

It's not as good for American business as it could be, but Clipper might
be very good for American businesses currently being attacked by foreign
interests.  These hundred of foreign encryption products may contain the
same sorts of holes you fear in US products.  Your proposal might be
even worse for the US. 

>  Finally, it is anti-progress. Wishing that there was no
> encryption available will not make it so. The technology is
> widely understood and available -- you can't put this genie
> basic in the bottle. Government policies should not encumber
> the American computing industry as it leads the world
> technology revolution.

History does not agree with you.  Progress has not histoprically been
generated by the availability of encryption.  It may be in the future,
but for now your claim seems unsupported to me.

>  We strongly urge you to oppose attempts to limit the ability
> of Americans to use whatever encryption they wish and to
> support the immediate relaxation of harmful export controls on
> American products and programs with encryption features.

I believe Newt is in favor of clipper and national defense and law
enforcement, all of which strongly support CLipper, wire tapping, etc. 

>      The Ad Hoc Taxpayer Coalition for Computer Privacy
> 
> Americans for Tax Reform
> Association of Concerned Taxpayers
> Competitive Enterprise Institute
> Citizens for a Sound Economy
> The Business Leadership Council
> The Small Business Survival Committee
> Citizens Against a National Sales Tax/VAT
> 
> Virginia Postrel, Editor, Reason magazine
> Sheldon Richman, Senior Editor, The Cato Institute
> Tanya Metaksa, Executive Director, Institute for Legislative
>  Action, National Rifle Association
> Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, The Polling Company
> Donna Matias, Institute for Justice
> 
> =+=+=+=+
> This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle
> Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA.
> 
> This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is
> available at any of the following URL's: http://WWW.NRA.Org,
> gopher://GOPHER.NRA.Org, wais://WAIS.NRA.Org, ftp://FTP.NRA.Org,
> mailto:LISTPROC@NRA.Org (Send the word help as the body of a message)
> 
> Information may also be obtained by connecting directly to the
> NRA-ILA GUN-TALK Bulletin Board System at (703) 934-2121.
> 
> --- end forwarded text
> 
> 
> -----------------
> Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
> e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA (617) 958-3971
> "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell
> The e$ Home Page: http://www.webstuff.apple.com/~vinnie/Rah
> >>>>Phree Phil: Email: zldf@clark.net  http://www.netresponse.com/zldf <<<<<

If the NRA has all that cash, why don't they support a much better
letter to Newt that is well supported by facts and has enough punch to
really sway him?

-- 
-> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net/
Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236

Hmm, not sure that it gets us anywhere. The Republicans seem to be even
more keen on wiretap and anti-privacy legislation than the Democrats.
Its called "being tough on crime".

After the airplane seat incident I don't see Newt in the running for 
President so it probably misses the mark. He might slip in a rider on
a bill but if you look at who gets that sort of treatment it correlates
very well with donations, silicon valley seems to be backing Clinton
walet wise.

I would not expect Bob Dole to be resisting pressure from the NSA on this
one more forcefully than Clinton (which let us be clear ain't very
forcefully at all).

I thought the quality of writing rather poor, the points are made in 
polemic, partisan terms which can be made in non-partisan terms. If I
were Newt this letter would say to me "we will vote for you anyway", so
why should Newt bother to pander? The ad hoc ginger groups listed are
a bit odd, the authors are associated with much better known (if
fruitcake) groups.


		Phill

hallam@w3.org writes:
> Hmm, not sure that it gets us anywhere. The Republicans seem to be even
> more keen on wiretap and anti-privacy legislation than the Democrats.
> Its called "being tough on crime".

Er, Newt was the one who railed against the Exon censorship bill, and
who's said in public that clipper is unrealistic.

Anyway, there is no observable difference between Republicans and
Democrats on the issue of wiretapping -- most statements that
Republicans are worse are based on wishful thinking by Democratic
sympathizers.

Perry

>Er, Newt was the one who railed against the Exon censorship bill, and
>who's said in public that clipper is unrealistic.

And where does that get us? Did Newt stop the Exon bill in its tracks?
Did he do anything to stop the wiretap bill?

If Newt is all stewed up then how come there isn't a provision in his
budget bill to force these laws to be dismantled the same way that there
are provisions on just about every other part of his agenda?

Face it, Newt may speak from the heart, but he acts from his pocket.

We haven't put enough into his back pocket to get attention.

	Phill

hallam@w3.org writes:
> 
> >Er, Newt was the one who railed against the Exon censorship bill, and
> >who's said in public that clipper is unrealistic.
> 
> And where does that get us? Did Newt stop the Exon bill in its tracks?
> Did he do anything to stop the wiretap bill?

And what did any of the Democrats do?

Anyone who thinks that Democrats are "better" for privacy and personal
freedom than Republicans has probably been taking very high quality
drugs indeed. A Democratic president has been pushing Clipper --
Senator Exon is a Democrat.


.pm

>And what did any of the Democrats do?

>Anyone who thinks that Democrats are "better" for privacy and personal
>freedom than Republicans has probably been taking very high quality
>drugs indeed. A Democratic president has been pushing Clipper --
>Senator Exon is a Democrat.

Yes and Coates is a Republican, Meanwhile Grassley and Dole have a parallel set 
of lossage. Incidentaly on the Exon-Coates ammendment, look into the connections 
between Rimm and the Christian right. The legal footnotes were apparently 
drafted by legal council for the Christian Coalition. Granted there are few 
friends of the Christian Right's manifesto on the Internet, I personally 
consider them an entryist group which the Republicans should recognise as a 
liability. 

The point was that the original post made the assumption that the Republicans 
were somehow differentiated from the Democrats on this. Its simply not true. 
Clipper was started under Bush (or possibly Regan) and Clinton carried it over 
without change. I don't see any sign at present that a Republican president 
wouldn't simply continue as well.

The only way something is going to get done is if the Clipper program gets 
labeled with the "take out with the trash" tag. Essentially there are always a 
whole series of civil service initiatives that continue from administration to 
administration that everybody knows are looser ideas but it is easier to 
continue with them than give the opposition an opportunity to claim that it was 
a retreat. It sounds (and is) a stupid way to do politics but that is the way it 
works. For some reason the american people consider stopping a bad policy to be 
a "flip-flop" and hence something which demonstrates the unfitness of the office 
holder, just as willingness to negotiate is "vacillation". 

Its not a new principle. Clinton axed a whole raft of programs that the Bush 
adminstration had realised were losers but had continued for the same reason.

What you have to avoid here is making the issue one of party politics. First off 
you will lose because you will bet on the losing side at least half the time. 
Secondly policies that get into the party political arena end up being treated 
in an absolutist and ideological manner which prevents any common sense input. 
You are likely to find both sides taking positions you don't like simply because 
it is advantageous politically.

Secondly you are likely to win the argumkent in the Congress and then lose it in 
the Whitehouse. The next administration will be either Dole or Clinton, more 
likely Clinton because Dole is a fossil and the next election will not be about 
the second world war or the cold war, it will be about responding to new 
technology. Neither Dole nor Clinton is likely to respond well to a mandate from 
congress concerning issues of national security. That is the card the FBI will 
play. The NSA have their own card but none of us know what their real concern 
is.

What I am saying is that we must not allow the Congress to attempt to beat up 
the Whitehouse. They simply do not have leverage on this issue. No President 
will overule the experts on a matter of National security lightly, if it is a 
partisan congressional mandate it will be much easier to reject.


A much better strategy is to portray the FBI as being a rogue agency acting 
outside their brief. The debate must be turned from a simple question of privacy 
versus national security which you will lose regardless of which party is in 
power to one of ecconomic security versus short term national security. You need 
to point out the ecconomic cost of insecure communications. You have to bring to 
light the behaviour of the French for example. Make it clear that US companies 
are loosing business because the French regularly tap fax communications.
Make it clear that encryption is essential to provide high grade protection 
against hackers.


The privacy issue may be what drives cypherpunks but it is not the argument 
which will work in the arena you need to be heard in. They do not care about 
privacy, most particularly not protection against government intrusion. They are 
not even that concerned about protecting individuals privacy against corporate 
abuse.

If you make it a party issue you will not only lose but risk turning the clock 
the other way. At the moment everyone knows that the export control laws are not 
stopping people from getting PGP. It is not a good idea to rub peoples noses in 
it. It is easy to ignore export violations by turning a blind eye. It is 
difficult to turn a blind eye when people are so anxious to announce what is 
going on. Phil Z. is not having problems because he wrote PGP, he is having 
problems because he made sure the FBI couldn't pretend they did not know what 
was going on.

If you make encryption a party issue then one of those Grassley bills will pass 
and the President in power may not veto it.


		Phill