Re: Republican and Democratic party platforms on technology

Dole's cosponsorship of Pro-CODE was a way to land some California votes
and a way to differentiate himself from Clinton, nothing more.

A statement he released on May 2 bashed the White House: "The
administration apparently thinks very little of the right to privacy -- it
presumes the government is entitled to all the so-called 'keys'  or secret
passwords which protect computer generate [sic] information from prying
yes..."

I predict that if he were to win, we'd see the fastest policy turnaround
ever. The moment he was inaugurated, Dole would pick up where Clinton left
off. Clipper IV, here we come...

But the benefit of having a pro-privacy statement in the platform (which in
fact was watered down significantly from that originally proposed by
advocates on our side) is that the platform covers Republican Party
candidates for any office, not just the presidency.

I'm told that the a Dem convention speaker may talk about privacy issues,
however.

-Declan



Tim writes, quoting me:

>Sure, the rhetoric might be slightly different under a Dole presidency. The
>focus would be on "halting the spread of abortion information on the Net"
>and "plotting by Communists using unbreakable cryptography."
>
>>(Contrast both parties with the Libertarians, which have a sterling
>>commitment to online civil liberties, reflected in the platform approved at
>>their convention last month.)
>
>I certainly plan to vote for Harry Browne, their candidate, even if voting
>only encourages the process.
>
>I first read Browne's stuff back in 1973, and, a few years later, his
>wonderful and "Zen Calvinist" (my term) book, "How I Found Freedom in an
>Unfree World," which I still recommend to people. As far as I'm concerned,
>Browne is the strongest candidate ever fielded by the Libertarian Party.

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

On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> But the benefit of having a pro-privacy statement in the platform (which in
> fact was watered down significantly from that originally proposed by
> advocates on our side) is that the platform covers Republican Party
> candidates for any office, not just the presidency.

One Republican staffer sent you an ass-kissing note quoting an ALLEGED piece
of the platform WHICH IS NOT ACTUALLY THERE. The platform was finalized on
August 12th. The text you quoted is not even in the list of rejected
amendments. I assume that either you or the staffer you talked to innocently
mistook some Senator's position paper for the platform; it's hard to believe
that anyone would intentionally lie about something that is so trivial to
check.

Even if the text you passed on were part of the platform, I fail to see the
importance of a feel-good statement in a platform that the party's
presidential candidate CLAIMS NOT TO HAVE EVEN READ.

Also from the Republican Platform (perhaps out of context, but unlike the
text some anonymous alleged Republican staffer sent you, this is actually
in the platform): 

[...]

In a Dole Administration, U. S. Attorneys will prosecute and jail those who
prey upon the innocent. We support upgrading our interdiction effort by
establishing a Deputy Commissioner for Drug Enforcement within the Customs
Service. We will intensify our intelligence efforts against international
drug traffickers and use whatever means necessary to destroy their
operations and seize their personal accounts.

We support strong penalties, including mandatory minimum sentences, for drug
trafficking, distribution and drug-related crimes.  Drug use is closely
related to crime and recidivism. Drug testing should be made a routine
feature of the criminal justice process at every stage, including the
juvenile justice system. Test results should be used in deciding pretrial
release, sentencing, and probation revocation.

[...]

Terrorist states have made a comeback during Bill Clinton's Administration. 
He has treated their rulers with undue respect and failed to curb their
acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.  Although congressional
Republicans passed anti-terrorism legislation earlier this year, the Clinton
Administration has not implemented many key provisions of the law. It has
not been used to freeze terrorists' assets, deny terrorists' visas, cut off
foreign aid to supporters of terrorist states, or halt terrorist fundraising
in the United States. The Clinton Administration has not implemented the
anti-terrorist research program established and funded by Congress in the
1990 Aviation Security Act.

[...]

Our technological edge is at risk not only because of the Clinton
Administration's refusal to sustain an adequate investment in defense
modernization, but also its virtual abandonment of national security-related
export controls.  Acquisition of technology by aspiring proliferators of
weapons of mass destruction has been irresponsibly facilitated. A Republican
Administration will protect the American technological edge. It will do so
by expanding investment in defense modernization, ensuring that the Defense
Department has a key role in approving exports of militarily critical
technology, and restoring the effectiveness of export control regimes.

[...]

The intelligence community should be our first line of defense against
terrorism, drug trafficking, nuclear proliferation, and foreign espionage.
Bill Clinton's neglect of our country's intelligence service is one of his
most serious sins of omission. He has underfunded, misutilized, and
marginalized critical intelligence missions and capabilities. No wonder his
first appointee as Director of Central Intelligence has endorsed Bob Dole.
The nation's security - and the personal safety of our citizens - cannot be
placed at risk.

Effective intelligence can be expensive. But what it costs is measured in
dollars rather than lives - an important lesson of the Gulf War. A
Republican Administration will reverse the decline in funding for
intelligence personnel and operations while better managing the development
of futuristic capabilities. We will not constrain U.S. intelligence
personnel with "politically correct"  standards that impede their ability to
collect and act on intelligence information. We will conduct whatever
intelligence operations are necessary to safeguard American lives against
the terrorists who bomb our airplanes and buildings.

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

iQBVAwUBMhy5wpNcNyVVy0jxAQFvgwH9FR9ZQca520mSuqhDO7OKLe6duAJAQ+HO
FP4UPnLWJZtOrI9LvWiX5EHoqG0RtaS2FwwMuwGZQedb8YdkW4QWUw==
=XdnD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I never really liked having my ass kissed much, so I'll find out the 
truth tomorrow.

I got a fax sent from a Senate office yesterday saying that it was in the
platform, even though it doesn't appear (yet) on the rnc.org web site --
a fact you'll note I mentioned in my original message. 

It was a good rant, though, Rich. Nicely done.

-Declan




On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Rich Graves wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > But the benefit of having a pro-privacy statement in the platform (which in
> > fact was watered down significantly from that originally proposed by
> > advocates on our side) is that the platform covers Republican Party
> > candidates for any office, not just the presidency.
> 
> One Republican staffer sent you an ass-kissing note quoting an ALLEGED piece
> of the platform WHICH IS NOT ACTUALLY THERE. The platform was finalized on
> August 12th. The text you quoted is not even in the list of rejected
> amendments. I assume that either you or the staffer you talked to innocently
> mistook some Senator's position paper for the platform; it's hard to believe
> that anyone would intentionally lie about something that is so trivial to
> check.
> 
> Even if the text you passed on were part of the platform, I fail to see the
> importance of a feel-good statement in a platform that the party's
> presidential candidate CLAIMS NOT TO HAVE EVEN READ.
> 
> Also from the Republican Platform (perhaps out of context, but unlike the
> text some anonymous alleged Republican staffer sent you, this is actually
> in the platform): 
> 
> [...]
> 
> In a Dole Administration, U. S. Attorneys will prosecute and jail those who
> prey upon the innocent. We support upgrading our interdiction effort by
> establishing a Deputy Commissioner for Drug Enforcement within the Customs
> Service. We will intensify our intelligence efforts against international
> drug traffickers and use whatever means necessary to destroy their
> operations and seize their personal accounts.
> 
> We support strong penalties, including mandatory minimum sentences, for drug
> trafficking, distribution and drug-related crimes.  Drug use is closely
> related to crime and recidivism. Drug testing should be made a routine
> feature of the criminal justice process at every stage, including the
> juvenile justice system. Test results should be used in deciding pretrial
> release, sentencing, and probation revocation.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Terrorist states have made a comeback during Bill Clinton's Administration. 
> He has treated their rulers with undue respect and failed to curb their
> acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.  Although congressional
> Republicans passed anti-terrorism legislation earlier this year, the Clinton
> Administration has not implemented many key provisions of the law. It has
> not been used to freeze terrorists' assets, deny terrorists' visas, cut off
> foreign aid to supporters of terrorist states, or halt terrorist fundraising
> in the United States. The Clinton Administration has not implemented the
> anti-terrorist research program established and funded by Congress in the
> 1990 Aviation Security Act.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Our technological edge is at risk not only because of the Clinton
> Administration's refusal to sustain an adequate investment in defense
> modernization, but also its virtual abandonment of national security-related
> export controls.  Acquisition of technology by aspiring proliferators of
> weapons of mass destruction has been irresponsibly facilitated. A Republican
> Administration will protect the American technological edge. It will do so
> by expanding investment in defense modernization, ensuring that the Defense
> Department has a key role in approving exports of militarily critical
> technology, and restoring the effectiveness of export control regimes.
> 
> [...]
> 
> The intelligence community should be our first line of defense against
> terrorism, drug trafficking, nuclear proliferation, and foreign espionage.
> Bill Clinton's neglect of our country's intelligence service is one of his
> most serious sins of omission. He has underfunded, misutilized, and
> marginalized critical intelligence missions and capabilities. No wonder his
> first appointee as Director of Central Intelligence has endorsed Bob Dole.
> The nation's security - and the personal safety of our citizens - cannot be
> placed at risk.
> 
> Effective intelligence can be expensive. But what it costs is measured in
> dollars rather than lives - an important lesson of the Gulf War. A
> Republican Administration will reverse the decline in funding for
> intelligence personnel and operations while better managing the development
> of futuristic capabilities. We will not constrain U.S. intelligence
> personnel with "politically correct"  standards that impede their ability to
> collect and act on intelligence information. We will conduct whatever
> intelligence operations are necessary to safeguard American lives against
> the terrorists who bomb our airplanes and buildings.
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
> 
> iQBVAwUBMhy5wpNcNyVVy0jxAQFvgwH9FR9ZQca520mSuqhDO7OKLe6duAJAQ+HO
> FP4UPnLWJZtOrI9LvWiX5EHoqG0RtaS2FwwMuwGZQedb8YdkW4QWUw==
> =XdnD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 


// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //

On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Rich Graves wrote, quoting me:

> > But the benefit of having a pro-privacy statement in the platform (which in
> > fact was watered down significantly from that originally proposed by
> > advocates on our side) is that the platform covers Republican Party
> > candidates for any office, not just the presidency.
> 
> One Republican staffer sent you an ass-kissing note quoting an ALLEGED piece
> of the platform WHICH IS NOT ACTUALLY THERE. The platform was finalized on
> August 12th. The text you quoted is not even in the list of rejected
> amendments.

Wrong. Check out what I've attached below.

Happily, I don't waste time listening to Rich's rants. I take this as a
lesson that his posts are, in fact, not worth the time it takes to delete
them. Rich, I suggest you stick to whining about MS Windows unless you
enjoy the embarrassment of being proved wrong, once again. 

-Declan

---

Muckraker
By Brock Meeks
http://www.hotwired.com/muckraker/

[...]

                The word "Internet" appears only once in the platform
                language. It's a small victory, but not an insignificant
                one. Two paragraphs are of particular interest - the last
                two in the "Creating Jobs for Americans" section. Here
                they are:
                
                "The communications revolution empowers individuals,
                enhances health care, opens up opportunity for rural
                areas, and strengthens families and institutions. A
                Dole-led Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of
                1996 to promote full and open competition and freedom of
                choice in the telecommunications marketplace. In
                contrast, the Clinton-Gore administration repeatedly
                defended big-government regulation. The micromanagement
                of the Information Age is an impediment to the
                development of America's information superhighway.
                
                "We support the broadest access to telecommunications
                networks and services, based upon marketplace
                capabilities. The Internet today is the most staggering
                example of how the Information Age can and will enhance
                the lives of Americans everywhere. To further this
                explosion of new-found freedoms and opportunities,
                privacy, through secured communications, has never been
                more important. Bob Dole and the Republican Party will
                promote policies that ensure that the US remains the
                world leader in science, technology, and innovation."
                
                First off, it's amazing to see the Republicans taking
                credit for the Telecommunications Reform Act because, in
                doing so, they also are taking credit for one of the most
                egregious attacks on the First Amendment in recent
                history: the passage of the Communications Decency Act,
                which was embedded in the telecom bill like a virus.

[...]

                The really interesting stuff comes after you decode the
                phrase "privacy, through secured communications." This
                really means: "the right to use private encryption
                technology." This brilliant gem was wedged into the
                platform, so I'm told, through the efforts of Senator
                Conrad Burns' staff. Burns, of course, is the author of
                the pro-crypto technology bill known as "Pro-CODE," which
                flies in the face of the administration's nearly paranoid
                anti-crypto policies.
                
[...]





// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //