Re: SAFE Bill discussion

The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their ability to
roll out Key Recovery.  They've said as much in the letter Declan forwarded:

   "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government
    from using appropriate incentives to support a key management
    infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added]

Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be
out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it?  I think not.

I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much
solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several
other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a
criticism of one provision.  However the overall statement was of support.
(see http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html)

As far as I can tell, everyone criticizing the bill either thinks that:

	a) CDT actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, or
	b) pretty much all of the Internet advocates believe that this bill
           is needed and are doing the best they can with what Congress has
           written.

You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans for Tax
Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer Professionals for
Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for Criminal
Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter.

Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being
unreasonable?  I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton
Administration.  Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep?

Here's a great excerpt from the Internet Privacy Coalition letter:

  The pending bill provides a positive framework for the reforms that are
  long overdue in this critical area. It makes clear that the sale or use
of
  encryption, a vital technique to promote network security and individual
  privacy, should not be restricted in the United States. This is the view
  widely shared by users of the Internet and the computer and communications
  industry. It was also a central recommendation of the
  report of the National Research Council last year.

Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for living.
I'm glad to be counted among them.

-S

-Shabbir

Shabbir Safdar <shabbir@vtw.org> writes:
> The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their ability to
> roll out Key Recovery.  They've said as much in the letter Declan forwarded:
> 
> Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be
> out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it?  I think not.
> [...]
> You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans for Tax
> Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer Professionals for
> Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for Criminal
> Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter.
> 
> Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being
> unreasonable?  I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton
> Administration.  Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep?

Those arguing in favour the SAFE bill claim it will make encryption
freely exportable.  They also claim that as a result of this we will
see encryption in mass market software.  Both are clearly attractive.

The SAFE bill also makes it a crime to use crypto in furtherance of a
crime (sentence += 5 years?).

The two in combination are problematic:

If microsoft products mostly include crypto which is turned on by
default, then everyone is using crypto.  So if one is unlucky enough
to be singled out for government harrassment for whatever "crime",
it's just a blanket law which allows the sentence to be increased by 5
years for nearly everyone in a few years.

In 10 to 20 years time your car, your mobile phone, your television,
your telephone, your brief-case, probably your toaster will have
crypto in it (your mobile phone and sat decoder already do).

Adding criminalization of use in furtherance of a crime is STUPID.
Mobile phones are a good example, they include crypto (at least GSM
does, even if it is naff, and only the link to the base station).  Say
the government designates you as a "criminal", and you use a mobile
phone, surely this is using crypto to further a crime?  It will make
it more difficult for the Feds to tap your line, right?  Especially if
you are using stolen phone ID cards.  Mobile phones are getting
cheaper, and more widespread.

It's similar to imposing restrictions on other technologies in their
early stages, say:

  "use of automobiles in furtherance of a crime will add 5 years to your
   sentence."

  "use of the new telephone service will add 5 years to your sentence"

I hope that the coalition of lobbying groups are not supporting SAFE
if this criminalization clause is there.

If you're going to support it at all, support it on the CONDITION that
this is removed.

However, messing with politicians is a dangerous hobby, read the fine
print real carefully, or you may very well actually be unwittingly
helping the enemy.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

Two quick points:

* I think the discussion centered around CDT since they put out a policy
post a few hours after the SAFE markup earlier this week, and that policy
post was well-circulated online.

* Didn't CDT, unlike the other groups like EPIC/ACLU/EFF/ATR, send a
letter to the House subcommittee on April 29 urging that SAFE be approved
without any changes? (I'm in Oklahoma right now and I have a copy of that
letter in my office in DC, but that's what I remember.) 

-Declan


On Thu, 1 May 1997, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:

> The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their ability to
> roll out Key Recovery.  They've said as much in the letter Declan forwarded:
> 
>    "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government
>     from using appropriate incentives to support a key management
>     infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added]
> 
> Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be
> out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it?  I think not.
> 
> I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much
> solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several
> other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a
> criticism of one provision.  However the overall statement was of support.
> (see http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html)
> 
> As far as I can tell, everyone criticizing the bill either thinks that:
> 
> 	a) CDT actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, or
> 	b) pretty much all of the Internet advocates believe that this bill
>            is needed and are doing the best they can with what Congress has
>            written.
> 
> You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans for Tax
> Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer Professionals for
> Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for Criminal
> Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter.
> 
> Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being
> unreasonable?  I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton
> Administration.  Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep?
> 
> Here's a great excerpt from the Internet Privacy Coalition letter:
> 
>   The pending bill provides a positive framework for the reforms that are
>   long overdue in this critical area. It makes clear that the sale or use
> of
>   encryption, a vital technique to promote network security and individual
>   privacy, should not be restricted in the United States. This is the view
>   widely shared by users of the Internet and the computer and communications
>   industry. It was also a central recommendation of the
>   report of the National Research Council last year.
> 
> Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for living.
> I'm glad to be counted among them.
> 
> -S
> 
> -Shabbir
> 
>

Shabbir is a very good organizer and often very busy, which
may explain the confusion about the TWO letters that were
sent out regarding SAFE.

CDT sent a letter to Hon. Howard Conable, the chair of the
Subcommittee, on April 24 which said that "CDT strongly urges
you to report H.R. 695, the SAFE Act, out of the Courts
and Intellectual Property Subcommittee without amendment."
[The CDT letter is at
http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_105/SAFE/970424_CDT_ltr.html]

EPIC helped coordinate a different letter for the Internet
Privacy Coalition, which went to Rep. Goodlatte on April
28 and said

     While expressing our support for the measure, we wish
     also to state our concern about one provision contained
     in the bill. We believe that this provision, which would
     create new criminal penalties for the use of encryption in
     furtherance of a crime, could undermine the otherwise laudable
     goals of the legislation. For the reasons set forth below, we
     recommend that this provision be reconsidered when the Committee
     considers the bill.

The IPC letter was signed by 26 privacy groups, user organizations,
private companies, and trade associations. [The IPC letter is
at http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html ]


Marc Rotenberg
EPIC.




At 8:55 AM -0500 5/2/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>At 8:49 AM -0400 5/2/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>Two quick points:
>>
>>* Didn't CDT, unlike the other groups like EPIC/ACLU/EFF/ATR, send a
>>letter to the House subcommittee on April 29 urging that SAFE be approved
>>without any changes? (I'm in Oklahoma right now and I have a copy of that
>>letter in my office in DC, but that's what I remember.)
>
>Declan, I can't believe you did your research so poorly.  Go look at the
>Internet Privacy Coalition letter at
>http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html or go to the crypto.com SAFE
>bill page at http://www.crypto.com/safe_bill/ and read the pointer from
>there.
>
>You'll see that CDT signed the very same letter that EPIC, ACLU, EFF, ATR,
>Eagle Forum, VTW, and PGP all signed.
>
>Since you've been laboring under this mistaken impression, you owe somebody
>at CDT a big fucking apology.
>
>-S
>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 1 May 1997, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>>
>>> The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their ability to
>>> roll out Key Recovery.  They've said as much in the letter Declan
>>>forwarded:
>>>
>>>    "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government
>>>     from using appropriate incentives to support a key management
>>>     infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added]
>>>
>>> Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be
>>> out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it?  I think not.
>>>
>>> I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much
>>> solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several
>>> other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a
>>> criticism of one provision.  However the overall statement was of support.
>>> (see http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html)
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, everyone criticizing the bill either thinks that:
>>>
>>> 	a) CDT actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, or
>>> 	b) pretty much all of the Internet advocates believe that this bill
>>>            is needed and are doing the best they can with what Congress has
>>>            written.
>>>
>>> You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans for Tax
>>> Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer Professionals for
>>> Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for Criminal
>>> Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter.
>>>
>>> Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being
>>> unreasonable?  I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton
>>> Administration.  Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep?
>>>
>>> Here's a great excerpt from the Internet Privacy Coalition letter:
>>>
>>>   The pending bill provides a positive framework for the reforms that are
>>>   long overdue in this critical area. It makes clear that the sale or use
>>> of
>>>   encryption, a vital technique to promote network security and individual
>>>   privacy, should not be restricted in the United States. This is the view
>>>   widely shared by users of the Internet and the computer and
>>>communications
>>>   industry. It was also a central recommendation of the
>>>   report of the National Research Council last year.
>>>
>>> Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for living.
>>> I'm glad to be counted among them.
>>>
>>> -S
>>>
>>> -Shabbir
>>>
>>>

Thanks, Marc, for posting the URL for CDT's letter urging the House
subcommittee to approve SAFE without amendment. I was quoting from memory.

No, Shabbir, I don't think I owe anyone a "big fucking apology."

-Declan


On Fri, 2 May 1997, Marc Rotenberg wrote:

> 
> 
> Shabbir is a very good organizer and often very busy, which
> may explain the confusion about the TWO letters that were
> sent out regarding SAFE.
> 
> CDT sent a letter to Hon. Howard Conable, the chair of the
> Subcommittee, on April 24 which said that "CDT strongly urges
> you to report H.R. 695, the SAFE Act, out of the Courts
> and Intellectual Property Subcommittee without amendment."
> [The CDT letter is at
> http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_105/SAFE/970424_CDT_ltr.html]
> 
> EPIC helped coordinate a different letter for the Internet
> Privacy Coalition, which went to Rep. Goodlatte on April
> 28 and said
> 
>      While expressing our support for the measure, we wish
>      also to state our concern about one provision contained
>      in the bill. We believe that this provision, which would
>      create new criminal penalties for the use of encryption in
>      furtherance of a crime, could undermine the otherwise laudable
>      goals of the legislation. For the reasons set forth below, we
>      recommend that this provision be reconsidered when the Committee
>      considers the bill.
> 
> The IPC letter was signed by 26 privacy groups, user organizations,
> private companies, and trade associations. [The IPC letter is
> at http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html ]
> 
> 
> Marc Rotenberg
> EPIC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 8:55 AM -0500 5/2/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
> >At 8:49 AM -0400 5/2/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >>Two quick points:
> >>
> >>* Didn't CDT, unlike the other groups like EPIC/ACLU/EFF/ATR, send a
> >>letter to the House subcommittee on April 29 urging that SAFE be approved
> >>without any changes? (I'm in Oklahoma right now and I have a copy of that
> >>letter in my office in DC, but that's what I remember.)
> >
> >Declan, I can't believe you did your research so poorly.  Go look at the
> >Internet Privacy Coalition letter at
> >http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html or go to the crypto.com SAFE
> >bill page at http://www.crypto.com/safe_bill/ and read the pointer from
> >there.
> >
> >You'll see that CDT signed the very same letter that EPIC, ACLU, EFF, ATR,
> >Eagle Forum, VTW, and PGP all signed.
> >
> >Since you've been laboring under this mistaken impression, you owe somebody
> >at CDT a big fucking apology.
> >
> >-S
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>On Thu, 1 May 1997, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their ability to
> >>> roll out Key Recovery.  They've said as much in the letter Declan
> >>>forwarded:
> >>>
> >>>    "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government
> >>>     from using appropriate incentives to support a key management
> >>>     infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added]
> >>>
> >>> Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be
> >>> out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it?  I think not.
> >>>
> >>> I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much
> >>> solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several
> >>> other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a
> >>> criticism of one provision.  However the overall statement was of support.
> >>> (see http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html)
> >>>
> >>> As far as I can tell, everyone criticizing the bill either thinks that:
> >>>
> >>> 	a) CDT actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, or
> >>> 	b) pretty much all of the Internet advocates believe that this bill
> >>>            is needed and are doing the best they can with what Congress has
> >>>            written.
> >>>
> >>> You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans for Tax
> >>> Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer Professionals for
> >>> Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for Criminal
> >>> Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter.
> >>>
> >>> Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being
> >>> unreasonable?  I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton
> >>> Administration.  Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep?
> >>>
> >>> Here's a great excerpt from the Internet Privacy Coalition letter:
> >>>
> >>>   The pending bill provides a positive framework for the reforms that are
> >>>   long overdue in this critical area. It makes clear that the sale or use
> >>> of
> >>>   encryption, a vital technique to promote network security and individual
> >>>   privacy, should not be restricted in the United States. This is the view
> >>>   widely shared by users of the Internet and the computer and
> >>>communications
> >>>   industry. It was also a central recommendation of the
> >>>   report of the National Research Council last year.
> >>>
> >>> Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for living.
> >>> I'm glad to be counted among them.
> >>>
> >>> -S
> >>>
> >>> -Shabbir
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Sorry, Shabbir, that doesn't cut it. You said I did my research "poorly,"
when in fact I was correct to say CDT asked the subcommittee to approve the
SAFE bill unchanged. Perhaps you should take your own advice next time and
do a bit of factchecking.

And I'm not "attacking" CDT. I'm not calling them "traitors to the
republic," as some others have. I simply posted this:

 >>* Didn't CDT, unlike the other groups like EPIC/ACLU/EFF/ATR, send a
 >>letter to the House subcommittee on April 29 urging that SAFE be approved
 >>without any changes? (I'm in Oklahoma right now and I have a copy of that
 >>letter in my office in DC, but that's what I remember.)

If that's an "attack," I'm Dorothy Denning.

I'm surprised, and disappointed, that you're so thin-skinned -- and so
eager to savage those who share your objectives: no export controls and no
domestic laws relating to encryption.

-Declan

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

At 12:02 PM -0400 5/2/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>Actually, I think you do.  There aren't any other groups out there who sent
>letters urging the entire subcommittee to start hacking on the bill at the
>subcommittee level.  Even the IPC letter to Goodlatte said to address the
>issue at the full committee level.
>
>That seems to be the strategy everyone is pursuing, so if you're going to
>attack CDT for it, you had better include VTW, the ACLU, EPIC, EFF, et al.
>
>-S
>
>At 8:51 AM -0700 5/2/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>Thanks, Marc, for posting the URL for CDT's letter urging the House
>>subcommittee to approve SAFE without amendment. I was quoting from memory.
>>
>>No, Shabbir, I don't think I owe anyone a "big fucking apology."
>>
>>-Declan
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 2 May 1997, Marc Rotenberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Shabbir is a very good organizer and often very busy, which
>>> may explain the confusion about the TWO letters that were
>>> sent out regarding SAFE.
>>>
>>> CDT sent a letter to Hon. Howard Conable, the chair of the
>>> Subcommittee, on April 24 which said that "CDT strongly urges
>>> you to report H.R. 695, the SAFE Act, out of the Courts
>>> and Intellectual Property Subcommittee without amendment."
>>> [The CDT letter is at
>>> http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_105/SAFE/970424_CDT_ltr.html]
>>>
>>> EPIC helped coordinate a different letter for the Internet
>>> Privacy Coalition, which went to Rep. Goodlatte on April
>>> 28 and said
>>>
>>>      While expressing our support for the measure, we wish
>>>      also to state our concern about one provision contained
>>>      in the bill. We believe that this provision, which would
>>>      create new criminal penalties for the use of encryption in
>>>      furtherance of a crime, could undermine the otherwise laudable
>>>      goals of the legislation. For the reasons set forth below, we
>>>      recommend that this provision be reconsidered when the Committee
>>>      considers the bill.
>>>
>>> The IPC letter was signed by 26 privacy groups, user organizations,
>>> private companies, and trade associations. [The IPC letter is
>>> at http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html ]
>>>
>>>
>>> Marc Rotenberg
>>> EPIC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 8:55 AM -0500 5/2/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>>> >At 8:49 AM -0400 5/2/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>> >>Two quick points:
>>> >>
>>> >>* Didn't CDT, unlike the other groups like EPIC/ACLU/EFF/ATR, send a
>>> >>letter to the House subcommittee on April 29 urging that SAFE be approved
>>> >>without any changes? (I'm in Oklahoma right now and I have a copy of that
>>> >>letter in my office in DC, but that's what I remember.)
>>> >
>>> >Declan, I can't believe you did your research so poorly.  Go look at the
>>> >Internet Privacy Coalition letter at
>>> >http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html or go to the crypto.com SAFE
>>> >bill page at http://www.crypto.com/safe_bill/ and read the pointer from
>>> >there.
>>> >
>>> >You'll see that CDT signed the very same letter that EPIC, ACLU, EFF, ATR,
>>> >Eagle Forum, VTW, and PGP all signed.
>>> >
>>> >Since you've been laboring under this mistaken impression, you owe
>>>somebody
>>> >at CDT a big fucking apology.
>>> >
>>> >-S
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>On Thu, 1 May 1997, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their
>>>ability to
>>> >>> roll out Key Recovery.  They've said as much in the letter Declan
>>> >>>forwarded:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>    "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government
>>> >>>     from using appropriate incentives to support a key management
>>> >>>     infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added]
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that
>>>they'd be
>>> >>> out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it?  I think not.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much
>>> >>> solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several
>>> >>> other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a
>>> >>> criticism of one provision.  However the overall statement was of
>>>support.
>>> >>> (see http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> As far as I can tell, everyone criticizing the bill either thinks that:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 	a) CDT actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, or
>>> >>> 	b) pretty much all of the Internet advocates believe that
>>>this bill
>>> >>>            is needed and are doing the best they can with what
>>>Congress has
>>> >>>            written.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans
>>>for Tax
>>> >>> Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer
>>>Professionals for
>>> >>> Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for
>>>Criminal
>>> >>> Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being
>>> >>> unreasonable?  I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton
>>> >>> Administration.  Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Here's a great excerpt from the Internet Privacy Coalition letter:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   The pending bill provides a positive framework for the reforms
>>>that are
>>> >>>   long overdue in this critical area. It makes clear that the sale
>>>or use
>>> >>> of
>>> >>>   encryption, a vital technique to promote network security and
>>>individual
>>> >>>   privacy, should not be restricted in the United States. This is
>>>the view
>>> >>>   widely shared by users of the Internet and the computer and
>>> >>>communications
>>> >>>   industry. It was also a central recommendation of the
>>> >>>   report of the National Research Council last year.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for
>>>living.
>>> >>> I'm glad to be counted among them.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -S
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -Shabbir
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>



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

Actually, I think you do.  There aren't any other groups out there who sent
letters urging the entire subcommittee to start hacking on the bill at the
subcommittee level.  Even the IPC letter to Goodlatte said to address the
issue at the full committee level.

That seems to be the strategy everyone is pursuing, so if you're going to
attack CDT for it, you had better include VTW, the ACLU, EPIC, EFF, et al.

-S

At 8:51 AM -0700 5/2/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Thanks, Marc, for posting the URL for CDT's letter urging the House
>subcommittee to approve SAFE without amendment. I was quoting from memory.
>
>No, Shabbir, I don't think I owe anyone a "big fucking apology."
>
>-Declan
>
>
>On Fri, 2 May 1997, Marc Rotenberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Shabbir is a very good organizer and often very busy, which
>> may explain the confusion about the TWO letters that were
>> sent out regarding SAFE.
>>
>> CDT sent a letter to Hon. Howard Conable, the chair of the
>> Subcommittee, on April 24 which said that "CDT strongly urges
>> you to report H.R. 695, the SAFE Act, out of the Courts
>> and Intellectual Property Subcommittee without amendment."
>> [The CDT letter is at
>> http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_105/SAFE/970424_CDT_ltr.html]
>>
>> EPIC helped coordinate a different letter for the Internet
>> Privacy Coalition, which went to Rep. Goodlatte on April
>> 28 and said
>>
>>      While expressing our support for the measure, we wish
>>      also to state our concern about one provision contained
>>      in the bill. We believe that this provision, which would
>>      create new criminal penalties for the use of encryption in
>>      furtherance of a crime, could undermine the otherwise laudable
>>      goals of the legislation. For the reasons set forth below, we
>>      recommend that this provision be reconsidered when the Committee
>>      considers the bill.
>>
>> The IPC letter was signed by 26 privacy groups, user organizations,
>> private companies, and trade associations. [The IPC letter is
>> at http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html ]
>>
>>
>> Marc Rotenberg
>> EPIC.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 8:55 AM -0500 5/2/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>> >At 8:49 AM -0400 5/2/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>> >>Two quick points:
>> >>
>> >>* Didn't CDT, unlike the other groups like EPIC/ACLU/EFF/ATR, send a
>> >>letter to the House subcommittee on April 29 urging that SAFE be approved
>> >>without any changes? (I'm in Oklahoma right now and I have a copy of that
>> >>letter in my office in DC, but that's what I remember.)
>> >
>> >Declan, I can't believe you did your research so poorly.  Go look at the
>> >Internet Privacy Coalition letter at
>> >http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html or go to the crypto.com SAFE
>> >bill page at http://www.crypto.com/safe_bill/ and read the pointer from
>> >there.
>> >
>> >You'll see that CDT signed the very same letter that EPIC, ACLU, EFF, ATR,
>> >Eagle Forum, VTW, and PGP all signed.
>> >
>> >Since you've been laboring under this mistaken impression, you owe somebody
>> >at CDT a big fucking apology.
>> >
>> >-S
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>On Thu, 1 May 1997, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their
>>ability to
>> >>> roll out Key Recovery.  They've said as much in the letter Declan
>> >>>forwarded:
>> >>>
>> >>>    "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government
>> >>>     from using appropriate incentives to support a key management
>> >>>     infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added]
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be
>> >>> out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it?  I think not.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much
>> >>> solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several
>> >>> other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a
>> >>> criticism of one provision.  However the overall statement was of
>>support.
>> >>> (see http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html)
>> >>>
>> >>> As far as I can tell, everyone criticizing the bill either thinks that:
>> >>>
>> >>> 	a) CDT actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, or
>> >>> 	b) pretty much all of the Internet advocates believe that this bill
>> >>>            is needed and are doing the best they can with what
>>Congress has
>> >>>            written.
>> >>>
>> >>> You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans
>>for Tax
>> >>> Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer
>>Professionals for
>> >>> Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for Criminal
>> >>> Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter.
>> >>>
>> >>> Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being
>> >>> unreasonable?  I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton
>> >>> Administration.  Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep?
>> >>>
>> >>> Here's a great excerpt from the Internet Privacy Coalition letter:
>> >>>
>> >>>   The pending bill provides a positive framework for the reforms
>>that are
>> >>>   long overdue in this critical area. It makes clear that the sale
>>or use
>> >>> of
>> >>>   encryption, a vital technique to promote network security and
>>individual
>> >>>   privacy, should not be restricted in the United States. This is
>>the view
>> >>>   widely shared by users of the Internet and the computer and
>> >>>communications
>> >>>   industry. It was also a central recommendation of the
>> >>>   report of the National Research Council last year.
>> >>>
>> >>> Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for
>>living.
>> >>> I'm glad to be counted among them.
>> >>>
>> >>> -S
>> >>>
>> >>> -Shabbir
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Ah, so here is the source of all the conspiracy theories:

At 1:14 AM -0700 5/2/97, Greg Broiles wrote:
>At 09:12 PM 5/1/97 -0400, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>
>>I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much
>>solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several
>>other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a
>>criticism of one provision.
>
>I think this is occurring for two reasons:
>2.	It strikes me as unlikely that all of the groups mentioned really sat
>down and hashed all of this out - my hunch is that one or two of the groups
>wrote up an analysis and a proposed letter, and asked the other groups to
>sign on. A likely suspect for the/a group who did the behind-the-scenes
>work is CDT.

The Internet Privacy Coalition letter, which said, (paraphrased) "we support
this bill but have concerns over the criminal provision" was coordinated by
EPIC, not CDT.  Hey, if you don't believe me, here's an excerpt from Audrie
Krause's NetAction notes (see http://www.netaction.org/)

  Earlier this week, EPIC staffers again sent out an E-mail alert, this time
  to members of the Internet Privacy Coalition requesting their signature on a
  letter to Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) [..]

  Again within a matter of days, EPIC was able to deliver a letter signed by
  25 organizations, including NetAction.  The letter is on the Web, at:
  <http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html>.

If you don't believe EPIC coordinated this letter, give Marc Rotenberg a
call at 202-544-9240. He's the one who called VTW to sign on, and when I
called him back to say thank you for distributing the letter, I asked him
to signon VTW.  Of course, the ACLU also signed the letter, saying they
support the bill but have concerns over the criminal provision.  You can
call them here in New York at 212-982-9800 (I think).  Barry signed the
letter, ask him.

By attacking the supporters of the bill, you're attacking CDT, the ACLU,
EPIC, VTW, EFF, Eagle Forum, Americans for Tax Reform, and PGP Inc.  You're
saying that all the Internet advocates have turned against crypto?

I don't think so.  I think you're sense of perspective is out of whack.

-S

On Fri, 2 May 1997, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
> 
> By attacking the supporters of the bill, you're attacking CDT, the ACLU,
> EPIC, VTW, EFF, Eagle Forum, Americans for Tax Reform, and PGP Inc.  You're
> saying that all the Internet advocates have turned against crypto?

Criticizing the bill is not the same thing as "attacking" its
supporters. Criticizing the arguments of those supporters in
favor of the bill, and questioning seeming inconsistencies
therein, is not the same thing as "attacking" those supporters.

Nor does such criticism imply an accusation that all, or
even some, of those supporters "have turned against crypto."

The illogical equlvalence you set up, however, does seem to
be characteristic of these supporters' arguments.:)
MacN

It dawns on me the the use of "Center", and "Democracy", in the same breath
is either redundant or an oxymoron (depending upon your politics :-)) and,
when used to in reference to "Technology", they *really* don't make sense,
in much the same way that "<ethnic>/<gender> physics" is nonsense.

Write software, not laws.

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete
               with the New York Times?"
Andrew Kantor: "Yes."  Stahl:  "Isn't that dangerous?"
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

At 8:49 AM -0400 5/2/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Two quick points:
>
>* Didn't CDT, unlike the other groups like EPIC/ACLU/EFF/ATR, send a
>letter to the House subcommittee on April 29 urging that SAFE be approved
>without any changes? (I'm in Oklahoma right now and I have a copy of that
>letter in my office in DC, but that's what I remember.)

Declan, I can't believe you did your research so poorly.  Go look at the
Internet Privacy Coalition letter at
http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html or go to the crypto.com SAFE
bill page at http://www.crypto.com/safe_bill/ and read the pointer from
there.

You'll see that CDT signed the very same letter that EPIC, ACLU, EFF, ATR,
Eagle Forum, VTW, and PGP all signed.

Since you've been laboring under this mistaken impression, you owe somebody
at CDT a big fucking apology.

-S

>
>
>On Thu, 1 May 1997, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>
>> The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their ability to
>> roll out Key Recovery.  They've said as much in the letter Declan forwarded:
>>
>>    "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government
>>     from using appropriate incentives to support a key management
>>     infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added]
>>
>> Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be
>> out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it?  I think not.
>>
>> I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much
>> solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several
>> other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a
>> criticism of one provision.  However the overall statement was of support.
>> (see http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html)
>>
>> As far as I can tell, everyone criticizing the bill either thinks that:
>>
>> 	a) CDT actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, or
>> 	b) pretty much all of the Internet advocates believe that this bill
>>            is needed and are doing the best they can with what Congress has
>>            written.
>>
>> You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans for Tax
>> Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer Professionals for
>> Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for Criminal
>> Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter.
>>
>> Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being
>> unreasonable?  I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton
>> Administration.  Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep?
>>
>> Here's a great excerpt from the Internet Privacy Coalition letter:
>>
>>   The pending bill provides a positive framework for the reforms that are
>>   long overdue in this critical area. It makes clear that the sale or use
>> of
>>   encryption, a vital technique to promote network security and individual
>>   privacy, should not be restricted in the United States. This is the view
>>   widely shared by users of the Internet and the computer and communications
>>   industry. It was also a central recommendation of the
>>   report of the National Research Council last year.
>>
>> Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for living.
>> I'm glad to be counted among them.
>>
>> -S
>>
>> -Shabbir
>>
>>

Thanks Marc, for the efforts at clearing things.  The CDT letter was sent
to the subcommittee, for reasons we've all already talked about (that these
issues are better handled at the full committee).

The Internet Privacy Coalition letter, which we all signed, was sent to
Goodlatte and contains the following quote:

   For the reasons set forth below, we recommend that this provision be
   reconsidered when the COMMITTEE considers the bill. [emphasis added]

Note, that Committee means full Committee, not subcommittee.

-S


At 11:33 AM -0500 5/2/97, Marc Rotenberg wrote:
>Shabbir is a very good organizer and often very busy, which
>may explain the confusion about the TWO letters that were
>sent out regarding SAFE.
>
>CDT sent a letter to Hon. Howard Conable, the chair of the
>Subcommittee, on April 24 which said that "CDT strongly urges
>you to report H.R. 695, the SAFE Act, out of the Courts
>and Intellectual Property Subcommittee without amendment."
>[The CDT letter is at
>http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_105/SAFE/970424_CDT_ltr.html]
>
>EPIC helped coordinate a different letter for the Internet
>Privacy Coalition, which went to Rep. Goodlatte on April
>28 and said
>
>     While expressing our support for the measure, we wish
>     also to state our concern about one provision contained
>     in the bill. We believe that this provision, which would
>     create new criminal penalties for the use of encryption in
>     furtherance of a crime, could undermine the otherwise laudable
>     goals of the legislation. For the reasons set forth below, we
>     recommend that this provision be reconsidered when the Committee
>     considers the bill.
>
>The IPC letter was signed by 26 privacy groups, user organizations,
>private companies, and trade associations. [The IPC letter is
>at http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html ]
>
>
>Marc Rotenberg
>EPIC.
>
>
>
>
>At 8:55 AM -0500 5/2/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>>At 8:49 AM -0400 5/2/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>>Two quick points:
>>>
>>>* Didn't CDT, unlike the other groups like EPIC/ACLU/EFF/ATR, send a
>>>letter to the House subcommittee on April 29 urging that SAFE be approved
>>>without any changes? (I'm in Oklahoma right now and I have a copy of that
>>>letter in my office in DC, but that's what I remember.)
>>
>>Declan, I can't believe you did your research so poorly.  Go look at the
>>Internet Privacy Coalition letter at
>>http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html or go to the crypto.com SAFE
>>bill page at http://www.crypto.com/safe_bill/ and read the pointer from
>>there.
>>
>>You'll see that CDT signed the very same letter that EPIC, ACLU, EFF, ATR,
>>Eagle Forum, VTW, and PGP all signed.
>>
>>Since you've been laboring under this mistaken impression, you owe somebody
>>at CDT a big fucking apology.
>>
>>-S
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Thu, 1 May 1997, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their ability to
>>>> roll out Key Recovery.  They've said as much in the letter Declan
>>>>forwarded:
>>>>
>>>>    "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government
>>>>     from using appropriate incentives to support a key management
>>>>     infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added]
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be
>>>> out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it?  I think not.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much
>>>> solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several
>>>> other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a
>>>> criticism of one provision.  However the overall statement was of support.
>>>> (see http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html)
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell, everyone criticizing the bill either thinks that:
>>>>
>>>> 	a) CDT actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, or
>>>> 	b) pretty much all of the Internet advocates believe that this bill
>>>>            is needed and are doing the best they can with what
>>>>Congress has
>>>>            written.
>>>>
>>>> You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans for Tax
>>>> Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer
>>>>Professionals for
>>>> Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for Criminal
>>>> Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter.
>>>>
>>>> Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being
>>>> unreasonable?  I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton
>>>> Administration.  Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep?
>>>>
>>>> Here's a great excerpt from the Internet Privacy Coalition letter:
>>>>
>>>>   The pending bill provides a positive framework for the reforms that are
>>>>   long overdue in this critical area. It makes clear that the sale or use
>>>> of
>>>>   encryption, a vital technique to promote network security and individual
>>>>   privacy, should not be restricted in the United States. This is the view
>>>>   widely shared by users of the Internet and the computer and
>>>>communications
>>>>   industry. It was also a central recommendation of the
>>>>   report of the National Research Council last year.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for living.
>>>> I'm glad to be counted among them.
>>>>
>>>> -S
>>>>
>>>> -Shabbir
>>>>
>>>>

This is indeed true - CDT sent a separate letter and signed the IPC letter.

As Marc Rotenberg knows very well, the legislative process is complicated.
Marc also knows that Goodlatte, Coble, Lofgren, and the other subcommittee
supporters of SAFE chose not to consider any amendments at the subcommittee
markup, but rather to take up our concerns at the full committee.

Goodlatte's staff and the other sponsors of SAFE had worked very hard to
prevent any amendments, hostile *and* friendly, at the subcommittee vote
for fear of hostile amendments from the Administration and opponents of
SAFE in the congress. A bill isn't worth much when it gets to the full
Committee if it gets gutted at the Subcommittee.  Goodlatte wanted to get
some momentum behind it before going into the expected all out fight at the
full committee.

CDT sent a separate letter to the subcommittee members focused on the
subcommittee markup urging the them to pass the bill without amendments.
The IPC letter was deliberately left vague with the intent of focusing on
the full Judiciary committee vote later this month.

We also signed the IPC letter to the full committee urging changes to the
criminal provision, and intend to work to see those changes through.

Jonah


At 11:33 AM -0500 5/2/97, Marc Rotenberg wrote:
>Shabbir is a very good organizer and often very busy, which
>may explain the confusion about the TWO letters that were
>sent out regarding SAFE.
>
>CDT sent a letter to Hon. Howard Conable, the chair of the
>Subcommittee, on April 24 which said that "CDT strongly urges
>you to report H.R. 695, the SAFE Act, out of the Courts
>and Intellectual Property Subcommittee without amendment."
>[The CDT letter is at
>http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_105/SAFE/970424_CDT_ltr.html]
>
>EPIC helped coordinate a different letter for the Internet
>Privacy Coalition, which went to Rep. Goodlatte on April
>28 and said
>
>     While expressing our support for the measure, we wish
>     also to state our concern about one provision contained
>     in the bill. We believe that this provision, which would
>     create new criminal penalties for the use of encryption in
>     furtherance of a crime, could undermine the otherwise laudable
>     goals of the legislation. For the reasons set forth below, we
>     recommend that this provision be reconsidered when the Committee
>     considers the bill.
>
>The IPC letter was signed by 26 privacy groups, user organizations,
>private companies, and trade associations. [The IPC letter is
>at http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html ]
>
>
>Marc Rotenberg
>EPIC.
>


* Value Your Privacy? The Governmet Doesn't.  Say 'No' to Key Escrow! *
            Adopt Your Legislator -  http://www.crytpo.com/adopt

--
Jonah Seiger, Communications Director              (v) +1.202.637.9800
Center for Democracy and Technology              pager +1.202.859.2151
<jseiger@cdt.org>
                                                    PGP Key via finger
http://www.cdt.org
http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger

There may be something in the view that there are enough laws already on
the books that if government agents want to give you grief, they can find a
way.  Adding another one is minor compared with preventing crypto
restrictions via executive order.  (How many laws did you break today?
Since I drove a car, I broke at least one.  With respect for the law gone,
the law has only fear, and that's a function of enforcement, and subject to
economic realities.)  YMMV.

Of course, getting rid of these kinds of laws is a project which is long
overdue starting and not adding new ones would be a good start.  (But
that's another rant.)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | God could make the world   | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | in six days because he did | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | not have an installed base.| Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA