NODE 19296ee7unsafe SAFE:
jamesd@echeque.comWed, 14 May 1997 12:30:55 +0800
according to http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10604,00.html
Kerrey's effort has one thing in common with the
SAFE Act: It calls for the creation of an Information
Security Board. The board proposal caused some
privacy watchdogs to pull their endorsements of
SAFE because it wouldn't have to comply with
federal open-meeting act.
Since a common hand has presumably been at work in both bills,
this looks like good cop / bad cop to me.
The good cop says, "I am your friend"
He is not your friend.
Create a federal board, and it will exercise power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
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
NODE cd429a83Re: unsafe SAFE:
Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>Wed, 14 May 1997 13:49:33 +0800
I believe Courtney got it wrong. Isn't it Pro-CODE that has the Info Board
provision? See:
SEC. 6. INFORMATION SECURITY BOARD.
(a) INFORMATION SECURITY BOARD TO BE ESTABLISHED- The Secretary shall
establish an Information Security Board comprised of
representatives of agencies within the Federal Government
responsible for or involved in the formulation of information
security policy, including export controls on products with
information security features (including encryption). The Board
shall meet at such times and in such places as the Secretary may
prescribe, but not less frequently than quarterly. The Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to the Board
or to meetings held by the Board under subsection (d).
-Declan
On Tue, 13 May 1997 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
> according to http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10604,00.html
>
> Kerrey's effort has one thing in common with the
> SAFE Act: It calls for the creation of an Information
> Security Board. The board proposal caused some
> privacy watchdogs to pull their endorsements of
> SAFE because it wouldn't have to comply with
> federal open-meeting act.
>
>
> Since a common hand has presumably been at work in both bills,
> this looks like good cop / bad cop to me.
>
> The good cop says, "I am your friend"
>
> He is not your friend.
>
> Create a federal board, and it will exercise power.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> |
> 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
>
>
NODE 38d485ebRe: unsafe SAFE:
Tim May <tcmay@got.net>Wed, 14 May 1997 14:21:34 +0800
At 9:15 PM -0800 5/13/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>I believe Courtney got it wrong. Isn't it Pro-CODE that has the Info Board
>provision? See:
>
> SEC. 6. INFORMATION SECURITY BOARD.
>
> (a) INFORMATION SECURITY BOARD TO BE ESTABLISHED- The Secretary shall
> establish an Information Security Board comprised of
> representatives of agencies within the Federal Government
> responsible for or involved in the formulation of information
> security policy, including export controls on products with
> information security features (including encryption). The Board
> shall meet at such times and in such places as the Secretary may
> prescribe, but not less frequently than quarterly. The Federal
> Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to the Board
> or to meetings held by the Board under subsection (d).
That was what I recollected, vaguely.
I haven't spent near as much time analyzing Pro-CODE as I did a couple of
weeks ago with SAFE. People tell me Pro-CODE is not nearly as bad, but I
remain skeptical. And certainly James Donald is basically right that _any_
provision for a "review board" is a disaster.
Review boards mean bureaucracy, entrenched interests, and a wedge for
denial of licensens.
As to Conrad Burns himself, he seemd jovial and "conservative" at last
summer's Stanford mini-conference. Conservative in the sense I like.
But how will a Montana Republican like him respond when ultra-strong crypto
is used to, say, import child porn undetectably from Denmark, where there
standards of what is child porn differ from those of Montana? This is where
the "Review Board" will get involved, and so on and so forth.
No politician I know of will ever be a friend of crypto anarchy.
--Tim May
There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
NODE eb48137cRe: unsafe SAFE:
"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>Thu, 15 May 1997 00:29:33 +0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In <v0300780aaf9f103e46dd@[207.167.93.63]>, on 05/14/97 at 12:53 AM,
Tim May <tcmay@got.net> said:
>No politician I know of will ever be a friend of crypto anarchy.
The only thing that polititions are ever a friend of is whatever cause is
flaver-of-the-month supported by the mob & media. They all have the
intestinal fortitude of a slug.
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0
Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Tag-O-Matic: OS/2: Taking the wind out of Windows.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 ES000000
iQCVAwUBM3nyEI9Co1n+aLhhAQGF3QQAmHIpFFW3lGPzWb+gAd7TNWAmTX0eXNGs
JtnB798cZWWs8KFkPXWphEvJy6vP58u8/2bMAI6WB977CjQmStJxRLwflNvNtLq3
GdYgn8CT7cmALJ+7pg7QinV26iwkAkT6kInNPcKNWsqyRv4XGOvvCadXlkegMGui
RNAr4hlv6mU=
=hEmI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----