[1431] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Mandatory key escrow bill text, backed by FBI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Declan McCullagh)
Sat Sep 6 11:37:42 1997
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: frissell@panix.com
cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970906045612.0070498c@panix.com>
On Sat, 6 Sep 1997 frissell@panix.com wrote:
> > (b) As of January 1, 1999, it shall be unlawful for any
> > person to manufacture for sale or distribution within
> > the U.S., distribute within the U.S., sell within the
> > U.S., or import into the U.S., any product that can be
> > used to encrypt communications or electronic
> > information, unless that product:
>
> But *not* posses or use.
Yet. If you look at free speech history for parallels, you see a push in
the 1970s to make the //sale or distribution// of child porn within the
U.S. illegal. (Distribution of obscenity was already illegal in most
every state, but the laws included tests for redeeming social value that
made it harder to convict.)
Then in the late 1980s some Republican senators successfully argued for an
amendment to the child porn statute that would make the mere
//possession// a Federal felony. My memory is a bit rusty here, but I
think the Supremes upheld it in _Osborne_. I believe it created a
presumption of intent that you had to argue against.
The same trend is evident here. First ban exports, then imports, then
distribution and sale, then the mere ownership of nonescrowed crypto.
-Declan
