Re: [NOISE] Re: Dorothy Denning attacks Leahy's crypto bill

At 05:31 AM 3/21/96 -0500, dirsec wrote:
> I think Leahy will, quite rightly, refuse to adopt the new bill because 
> it has a snowball's chance in hades of passing, and it makes him look 
> soft on crime and terrorists.

Hold it:  Backup:  Opponents of the bill say it says X:  Supporters of the 
bill say it says Y:  The proposal is to rewrite the bill so it actually 
does say Y in plain english.  And you (quite correctly) say that the bill
will not pass if says Y.

You are right.

The bill does not facilitate crypto exports, it just sounds like it does, 
and it delegates judicial powers to cops.

If it was amended to facilitate crypto exports, and to maintain the 
separation of judiciary and executive, it would not pass.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              				|  
We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind	|  
of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the	|  
arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com

On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

> At 05:31 AM 3/21/96 -0500, dirsec wrote:
> > I think Leahy will, quite rightly, refuse to adopt the new bill because 
> > it has a snowball's chance in hades of passing, and it makes him look 
> > soft on crime and terrorists.
> 
> Hold it:  Backup:  Opponents of the bill say it says X:  Supporters of the 
> bill say it says Y:  The proposal is to rewrite the bill so it actually 
> does say Y in plain english.  And you (quite correctly) say that the bill
> will not pass if says Y.

It's even deeper than this really.  Opponents of the bill say it says X.  
Supporters of the bill say it says Y.  The bill actually sounds more like 
X than Y.  There is very little incentive to make the bill anything like 
Y.  The bill could probably be a straight forward X and still pass.

> 
> You are right.
> 
> The bill does not facilitate crypto exports, it just sounds like it does, 
> and it delegates judicial powers to cops.

Well, it facilitates them, but it takes with the other hand at the same 
time.  It does not facilitate strong unescrowed crypto exports.

> If it was amended to facilitate crypto exports, and to maintain the 
> separation of judiciary and executive, it would not pass.

If it was just amended to facilitate crypto exports, it would not pass.

>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>               				|  
> We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
> and our property, because of the kind	|  
> of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
> derives from this right, not from the	|  
> arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com
> 
> 

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information

> It's even deeper than this really.  Opponents of the bill say it says X.  
> Supporters of the bill say it says Y.  The bill actually sounds more like 
> X than Y.  There is very little incentive to make the bill anything like 
> Y.  The bill could probably be a straight forward X and still pass.

This will probably be unpopular, but:

There has been a defacto toleration of some cheap arguments in many online
forums dedicated to crypto discussions, including this one.  People who
agree with us are brave freedom fighters, and our enemies are evil people
who want to take everyone's freedoms away. 

There are honest, intelligent, and well informed people on both sides of
the Leahy bill here on this list.  We are appalled, rightfully so, when
Schneier, Blaze, et al are smeared by anonymous posts dencouncing their
characters and calling for mailbombings.  But we shouldn't be surprised --
those tactics have been used repeatedly during the larger crypto debate.
Remember when Bizdos was the anti-christ?

I think we'd all be better off if people like Denning felt that they could
come online and mix it up with the rest of us without worrying about being
shouted down or harassed.  I remember when she used to answer questions on
sci.crypt with some regularlity.  Say what you want about her politics, 
she wrote a good crypto textbook and she's good at teaching.  There'd be 
more people who know their crypto if she was still hanging around.

Arguing exclusively against straw men isn't good for us.  It lets us 
slide by with weaker arguments than good opponents would coax from us, 
and it hurts our ability to repsond effectively to their arguments.

Crypto technology is going to effect society in lots of ways, some blunt
and others subtle.  It's complicated stuff, and intelligent people can 
disagree without being evil or in cahoots with the forces of tyranny.  
There's a line from an old Neil Young song -- even Richard Nixon has got 
soul.  Well, so does Dorothy Denning, and so do the people at the NSA, 
and the management at AT&T.

Those who would restrict crypto are wrong, and if they prevail in the
debate they will do a lot of damage, and yes, they will end up depriving 
us of a big part of our liberty.  But to them *we* are doing a lot of 
damage -- we're creating a dangerous and lawless world where personal 
safety will be nothing but a dim memory.

Who's right?  How can you tell?  With an open and honest debate between
their best people and ours.  I am absolutely certain that we would prevail
in such a debate.  But we can't get together to stage such a thing -- here
on our home turf they're not welcome, and we're certainly not welcome at
the security briefings, or whatever it is they call it when the feds lobby
lawmakers about crypto issues. 

I do not mean to imply that any of the leading figures here on cypherpunks
stoop to character assination and harassment.  But there has been what
seems to me to be an effort to romanticize the issue, create a sort of
counter-culture fervor.  There is a tendency to shout and protest rather
than to argue and persuade.  Unthinking intolerance of dissent is common
among a lot of the transient people on the list, as is a bias against
people affiliated with large companies.

All I'm suggesting is that the next time somone get creamed for saying 
something unpopular, that maybe we should defend their right to say it, 
as long as they say it well and honestly.