Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup

X-POP3-Rcpt: declan@relay.pathfinder.com
X-Sender: declan@mail.pathfinder.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 18:17:09 -0400
To: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: FC: Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup
Sender: owner-fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu
Reply-To: declan@well.com
X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/

Encryption is again bubbling to the surface of Washington politics. Today
the Department of Commerce announced that it was creating a new committee
to advise it on crypto-issues. A department official told me it would be
composed of "businesses that export encryption," and interested parties
have 15 working days to file comments. A way for the White House to split
industry opposition and persuade high tech firms to buy into key escrow?
Hmm...

On the Hill, crypto legislation that would lift export controls is about to
advance farther than ever before. (Last fall, Sen. Exon killed any chance
that pro-crypto legislation had in the 104th Congress.) Rep. Bob
Goodlatte's crypto bill (SAFE) will move to subcommittee markup next
Tuesday at 2 pm in Rayburn 2237. After the full committee reports the bill,
it moves to the international relations committee. Sen. Conrad Burns also
would like to move forward with his Pro-CODE bill in May.

Problem is, Goodlatte's SAFE bill, which has about 70 cosponsors, does more
than just relax export controls and prohibit mandatory key escrow. It also
creates new criminal penalties for using encryption to further a criminal
act. Now, some say that it's innocuous -- and a good tradeoff for getting
export controls lifted -- but I'm not convinced. When encryption is
widespread and present in telephones, radios, cell phones, wireless modems,
web browsers, televisions, and maybe light switches, *any use* of any
electronic appliance will involve encryption. (Who wants a hacker playing
with your toaster?)

Remember that Maryland bill that would criminalize sending "annoying" or
"harassing" email? If the Goodlatte bill became law, Marylanders who signed
their messages with PGP or telnetted to local ISPs could be slammed with an
all-expenses-paid trip to the Federal pen for five years.

In other words, SAFE would turn state misdemeanors into Federal felonies.
This is not good.

A coalition of groups is sending a letter to Goodlatte tomorrow supporting
the bill but expressing concern over the criminalization provision.
Interested in signing on? Email David Sobel: sobel@epic.org.

-Declan

*****************

Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act (Introduced in the House)

`Sec. 2805. Unlawful use of encryption in furtherance of a criminal act

       `Any person who willfully uses encryption in furtherance of the
commission of a criminal
       offense for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of
competent jurisdiction--

              `(1) in the case of a first offense under this section, shall
be imprisoned for not
              more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this
title, or both; and

              `(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense under this
section, shall be
              imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount
set forth in this title,
              or both.'.


*****************

Federal Register, April 24, 1997:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

President's Export Council Subcommittee on Encryption;
Notice of Establishment

    The Secretary of Commerce has determined that the
establishment of the President's Export Council
Subcommittee on Encryption is in the public interest in
connection with the performance of duties imposed on the
Department by law.

    The Subcommittee will advise the Secretary, through the
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, on
matters pertinent to the implementation of an encryption
policy that will support the growth of commerce while
protecting the public safety and national security.

    The Subcommittee will consist of approximately 25 members
to be appointed by the Secretary to assure a balanced
representation among the exporting community and those
Government agencies with a mandate to implement policy
regarding encryption.

    The Subcommittee will function solely as an advisory body.

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
the establishment of the Subcommittee to Lee Ann Carpenter,
Committee Liaison Officer, OAS/EA/BXA, U.S. Department of
Commerce, MS: 3886C, Washington, D.C., 20230. Telephone:
202-482-2583. FAX: 202-501-8024.

    Dated: April 18, 1997.
Sue E. Eckert,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.

[Thanks to JYA. --Declan]



-------------------------
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send
"subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu.
More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/

> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 18:17:09 -0400
> To: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> Subject: FC: Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup

> It also creates new criminal penalties for using encryption to
> further a criminal act ...  Remember that Maryland bill that would
> criminalize sending "annoying" or "harassing" email? If the
> Goodlatte bill became law, Marylanders who signed their messages
> with PGP or telnetted to local ISPs could be slammed with an
> all-expenses-paid trip to the Federal pen for five years ...  In
> other words, SAFE would turn state misdemeanors into Federal
> felonies.  This is not good.

Ok.  So it's kind of bad in this respect, but let's face it ... we
can't have everything OUR way, the FIRST time around.  Washington
politics is just not that way (not that you need such a reminder).

> A coalition of groups is sending a letter to Goodlatte tomorrow supporting
> the bill but expressing concern over the criminalization provision.
> Interested in signing on? Email David Sobel: sobel@epic.org.

Let's let the legislative process (whatever you think of it) take its
course.  I'll be happy even if they sneak some screwy secret committee
on the final bill, as long as we are not subject to that committee or
any other governmental body just because we allow ftp of C source code
by our off-shore friends.

Ern

-- 
Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer/Chief Cut And Paste Officer
Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707
Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua@chromatic.com

Ernest Hua wrote:
> 
> > It also creates new criminal penalties for using encryption to
> > further a criminal act ...  Remember that Maryland bill that would
> > criminalize sending "annoying" or "harassing" email? If the
> > Goodlatte bill became law, Marylanders who signed their messages
> > with PGP or telnetted to local ISPs could be slammed with an
> > all-expenses-paid trip to the Federal pen for five years ...  In
> > other words, SAFE would turn state misdemeanors into Federal
> > felonies.  This is not good.
> 
> Ok.  So it's kind of bad in this respect, but let's face it ... we
> can't have everything OUR way, the FIRST time around.  Washington
> politics is just not that way (not that you need such a reminder).

Are you kidding? With the exception of export controls, we DO have
it our way now. If we let them have it at all, we will NEVER have
it our way. Any legislation at all, no matter what it says, is bad.

> 
> > A coalition of groups is sending a letter to Goodlatte tomorrow 
> > supporting the bill but expressing concern over the criminalization 
> > provision. Interested in signing on? Email David Sobel: 
> > sobel@epic.org.
> 
> Let's let the legislative process (whatever you think of it) take its
> course.  I'll be happy even if they sneak some screwy secret committee
> on the final bill, as long as we are not subject to that committee or
> any other governmental body just because we allow ftp of C source code
> by our off-shore friends.

Under no circumstances should any right or liberty be sacrificed so that
we can export crypto. One of the principal reasons for export control
is to prevent the widespread deployment of strong crypto IN the U.S.
It seems they are willing to lift export controls if we all lie down
and let them impose controls on domestic use. No thanks. Fuck RSA. 
Fuck Netscape. Fuck M$. I'm not gonna give up my ability to use crypto
so they can make more money.

-- Mr. E