[1472] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: House panel votes behind closed doors to build in Big Brother
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Helms)
Fri Sep 12 14:41:25 1997
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:35:53 -0700 (MST)
From: Phil Helms <phil@cccs.cccoes.edu>
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970911233810.23060N-100000@well.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Software that protects your privacy is a controlled substance that may no
> longer be sold, a Congressional committee decided today.
It's not law yet.
> Also, there are provisions for holding secret
> hearings, and "public disclosure of the proceedings shall be
> treated as contempt of court."
Star Chamber?
> ADVISORY PANEL: Creates the Encryption Industry and Information
> Security Board, with seven members from Justice, State, FBI, CIA,
> White House, and six from the industry.
Interesting that the majority representation lies with the government.
> INTERNATIONAL: The president can negotiate international agreements
> and perhaps punish noncompliant governments. Can you say "trade
> sancation?"
If this becomes law, but other governments don't line up behind it, it might
have to be reconsidered, to prevent the loss of our international trade in
software products.
Personally, I don't like the idea of a government that thinks it has the right
to watch me through a one-way mirror any time it deems fit, forcing its stance
on sovereign nations that might not agree with it.
> That's why the encryption outlook in Congress is abysmal. Crypto-advocates
> have lost, and lost miserably. A month ago, the debate was about export
> controls. Now the battle is over how strict the //domestic// controls will
> be. It's sad, really, that so many millions of lobbyist-dollars were not
> only wasted, but used to advance legislation that has been morphed into a
> truly awful proposal.
I personally thought the government was on the run, but what we seem to
have had recently is a strong counterattack by the control faction.
I'm not really anti-government... just anti-absolute-power.
It might be argued that the larger the society, the less freedom its members
can be safely allowed to enjoy. But by the same reasoning, the larger the
government, the less freedom its departments can be safely allowed to enjoy.
In the US, there are not just three branches of government, but four. The
people are the fourth branch, and should be at least equal in power to the
total of the other three. I believe there's an imbalance that needs to
be redressed here... the fourth branch, through manipulation by and secrecy
within the other three, is decidedly weaker than it should be. The one-way
mirror is not an improvement.
These opinions are, of course, my own, and don't necessarily reflect those
of my employer, my family, or my dogs, and possibly don't reflect those of
anyone with good sense, either.
--
Phil Helms Internet: phil@cccs.cccoes.edu
