In response to Declan's questions about crypto.com

This morning, a private note from me to Declan -- part of an ongoing
personal conversation between Declan, CDT, and his editors at Time -- was
forwarded to several public lists.

It was not, as some have assumed, an attempt to obscure the substantive
issues he raised.  Unfortunately, this whole thing explored before CDT had
a chance to respond to Declan's questions directly.

I hope that the points below will help to clarify the issues:

1. CDT, along with VTW, EFF, ATR and Wired, spent the last two weeks rallying
   Internet users to call the Committee in opposition to Oxley-Manton.  We
   generated thousands of phone calls from constituents to the Committee, which
   we believe was a decisive factor in the defeat of Oxley-Manton.

2. CDT rallied support among the computer and communications industries,
   including many companies that have not yet weighed in yet on this issue.
   Opposition from the baby bells, along with companies who have in the past
   been favorable to the Administration's position (like IBM and TIS), probably
   made the difference in defeating Oxley-Manton

3. CDT did NOT support, nor work on, the White-Markey proposal. We strongly
   oppose the increased criminal provisions (as well as the criminal provisions
   in the original SAFE bill).  We are also concerned about the role of the
NET
   Center and the proposed liability limitations for key recovery agents
(though
   we do not believe that any liability limitations were included in the final
   bill)

4. CDT continues to support efforts to relax encryption export controls.  We
   believe that export relief is critical to promoting privacy and security on
   the Internet, both at home and abroad. We are steadfastly opposed to ANY
   domestic requirements, mandatory or "voluntary", to incorporate key-escrow,
   key-recovery, or other "immediate access" requirements.

5. We expect that all efforts to enact encryption reform legislation are
stalled
   for the remainder of this year, and we do not support any effort to bring
   SAFE to the House floor.  All our efforts are focused on stopping Congress
   from passing any bill in the foreseeable future, unless and until it is
clear
   that domestic  law enforcement access requirements will NOT be a part of any
   legislation.

6. We are not working for a "compromise" with the FBI or any other
supporters of
   domestic encryption controls.

We also recognize the realities of politics.  No matter how much any of us
might wish it to be true, members of the Commerce Committee were not
willing to stand up and simply oppose everything.   It was not in the
cards.  White and Markey offered them a chance to defeat Oxley while
throwing a small bone to law enforcement.  We believe that passage of SAFE
with the White-Markey amendment, despite the problems with the criminal
provisions, is on balance, a step forward in the fight for encryption
policy reform.

That's why we have described the vote on cryto.com as a "vote in favor of
privacy".  I do not expect that this will convince all of our detractors,
but I do hope this clarifies the substance of Declan's criticism.

As always, I am happy to respond to queries about CDT's positions and
tactics, but I am not interested in engaging in public flame throwing.

Best,

Jonah


* Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't.  Say 'No' to Key Escrow! *
            Adopt Your Legislator -  http://www.crypto.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

At 03:09 PM 9/26/97 -0400, Jonah Seiger wrote:

>We also recognize the realities of politics.  No matter how much any of us
>might wish it to be true, members of the Commerce Committee were not
>willing to stand up and simply oppose everything.   It was not in the
>cards.  White and Markey offered them a chance to defeat Oxley while
>throwing a small bone to law enforcement.  We believe that passage of SAFE
>with the White-Markey amendment, despite the problems with the criminal
>provisions, is on balance, a step forward in the fight for encryption
>policy reform.
>
>That's why we have described the vote on cryto.com as a "vote in favor of
>privacy".  I do not expect that this will convince all of our detractors,
>but I do hope this clarifies the substance of Declan's criticism.

One of the realities of politics is that every gain for the opposition
contributes to a critical mass that can result in eventual passage of 'bad'
legislation. Though I tend to be pragmatic, I'm concerned that we tend to
give away too much early on in the legislative process.  Considering that
there is substantial opposition (by attorneys, professors, and corporations
as well as by crypto-anarchists) to crypto restrictions on the table, we
hurt ourselves if we declare a partial win as anything but a loss at this
point. Consider that crypto is hard to grasp for many, and we may be
feeding complacency with  unrealistic claims of victory.

----
jonl@well.com
http://www.well.com/~jonl

Jon Lebkowsky wrote:
> Though I tend to be pragmatic, I'm concerned that we tend to
> give away too much early on in the legislative process.  Considering that
> there is substantial opposition (by attorneys, professors, and corporations
> as well as by crypto-anarchists) to crypto restrictions on the table, we
> hurt ourselves if we declare a partial win as anything but a loss at this
> point. Consider that crypto is hard to grasp for many, and we may be
> feeding complacency with  unrealistic claims of victory.

 Bad news, gang! I've re-upped my liquor supply and I am therefore not
prone to suffer fools gladly, for the moment.

 Please answer the following question for me:
"When was the last time you 'compromised' in a game of Monopoly?"

  "Golly, gee. If you can't afford to pay the rent for landing on Park
Place, with my four hotels in place, why don't I cut you a little slack
so that you can make a comeback and rip my throat out later in the
game."

  Monopoly has rules. Cribbage has rules. You never hear anyone saying,
"Fourteen? Close enough! Count it as fourteen-two."

  Why is it that people who would castigate, slander and lynch a person
who cheats at golf, are so eager to preach 'compromise' with those who
want to cheat at 'the Constitution'?

  "The rules say, 'not closer to the hole' you dipshit! You can't throw
the ball 50 feet toward the green!"
~versus~
  "Sure it *says* "the right to bear arms," but it doesn't really *mean*
that. It really means "the right to bear arms, unless Congress says that
your rifle is a 'gimme'."

  "Yeah, Tiger, just 'kick' that ball in the hole, and we'll give you 
the trophy."

  "We'll just round 'pi' off to 3.0 and...Hey! Where did my circle go?
It's those fucking drug dealing, terrorist pedophiles that took my 
circle, isn't it? We'll declare a 'War on Pi' and Key Escrow their
sorry asses. That'll solve the problem. Of course, we'll have to 
make using the correct value of 'pi' in the commission of a crime
a fucking felony, but we have to think of the children."

Nobody (posting anonymosly)
"Stop making sense, Amelia." ~~David Burn ('em if you got 'em)

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

on or about 970926:1655 
    A Player To Be Named Later <aptbnl@dev.null> purported to expostulate:

    [snip]

+  Why is it that people who would castigate, slander and lynch a person
+who cheats at golf, are so eager to preach 'compromise' with those who
+want to cheat at 'the Constitution'?

    elementary, Mr. Watson: politicians _must_ pass a law, even a bad
    law (so they can go home and say they were doing their job). in
    America they call it "log rolling".

    with few exceptions, todays politicians are a collection of morally 
    derelict, intellectually bankrupt, ego-aggrandizing inanities.

    power corrupts so vicariously their threadbare cranial vacuities that
    they succomb to the ultimate aphrodesiac: governance; any governance
    will do since the rules do not apply to them. alone they thunder in
    paranoid schizophrenia.

    when the day comes, the tumbrils shall roll to the fantasy of 
    Saint-Saens Organ Symphony (#3) --do not ask for whom the bell 
    tolls, it tolls for thee. (EH) we are closing the 3rd of 5 movements

    and none shall have the loyal lady in Stendahl's 'The Red and the
    Black' to caress their severed heads.

 [snip]

 --
 "Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other."     
        --Benjamin Franklin
 ______________________________________________________________________
 "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be

iQCVAwUBNCytkb04kQrCC2kFAQGZrAP/b0F5xxyilEtHKY0V6HxN6OOLR8KJosoc
oQEn/Agzs1IX/e1pOtL07+1p7Tpf/racQSE/Nh8rY0eL111Wy56U5cxYI6ms9GnZ
Vl8qcMSiC6zhqb5JOscTcXRAMv21hJeNmjEqTU50SK6xjA2XsToA43P3L+b81f6B
msuJPKNVWuA=
=gSey
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 3:09 pm -0400 on 9/26/97, Jonah Seiger wrote:

> We believe that passage of SAFE
> with the White-Markey amendment, despite the problems with the criminal
> provisions, is on balance, a step forward in the fight for encryption
> policy reform.

And *I* "believe" that anyone who would spout such dreck, evidently out of
both sides of his mouth, is an ironclad fuckwit, no matter his talent for
such copralalic oral gymnastics.

I also "believe" that the combination of words like "Center",  and
"Democracy", and "Technology" in any *sentence*, much less in an
organization's name, is a three-dimensional oxymoron, especially in this
day and age, and particularly on issues like cryptography and digital
commerce.

You folks at CDT have proven, time and time again, to be comically, if not
criminally, negligent in the defense of freedom, and, worse, :-),
economics, which, fortunately, can take care of itself without any "help"
from "Centers" for "Democracy" and Technology like yours, thank you very
much.


Paradoxically, fools like you *are* helpful, but not in the grandiose way
you imagine. You are the crypto equivalents of Lenin's "useful idiots".
That is, you'll keep the dance band on the Titanic playing "Nearer My God
to Thee" in the bar while the rest of us with any sense are making for the
lifeboats. There's more room that way, so it's nice of you to oblige, and
all...


Better yet, you guys are like courtiers in Madrid, knifing each other in
back alleys and sleeping with each other's wives while the rest of us are
out making something useful out of the new world's wilderness.


It seems to me the less you know about what we can do with cryptography,
particularly financial cryptography, the better off all of us probably are.
You keep winning your increasingly less relevant turf wars, and we'll keep
making the world safer from people like you. Sounds perfectly fair to me.

The way I understand it, it took Madrid a good 300 years before it realized
it never had control over the western hemisphere to begin with. Same with
London, now that I think about it, but it only took us in North America 200
years or so to get rid of statist empire-builders like you. Must be the
colder climate, or something.


So, I guess the rest of us, those who want to make money with cryptography,
had better get on with it, and get used to your antics as part of the
background noise. If we convert 200 years into internet dog-years, we have
another 30 years of your incessant nattering to live with. Fortunately,
it'll be annoying, but not fatal.


The old Californios had an expression. It went something like: "God is in
Heaven. The King is in Spain. The Governor is in Mexico City. And I,
mercifully, am right here, as far away as possible from all three."

Via Con Dios, Bunky. Stay out of those back alleys, and always keep your
sword nearby when fucking your neighbor's (or your supposed
"constituent's") wife.


Cheers,
Bob Hettinga





-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/