[327] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Pro-CODE Crypto Bill
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lisa Kamm)
Mon Mar 3 13:27:48 1997
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:25:43 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970302111625.0314f5c0@mail.teleport.com>
To: Alan Olsen <alan@ctrl-alt-del.com>
From: Lisa Kamm <kamml@aclu.org>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
>At 12:47 PM 3/2/97 -0500, John Young wrote:
>>We've put the new Senate Pro-CODE encryption bill at:
>>
>> http://jya.com/s377.htm (23K)
>
>There is an interesting addition to the bill that I have not seen discussed
>here yet. The pro-code bill has added an "Information Security Board". This
>provision worries me. It sound like a nice little rubber hose committee.
>("The House Committee on Unamerican Encryption"?)
>
>Any opinions on this new development?
>
Yes - it is highly troublesome.
While Pro-CODE does make some steps in the right direction, moving policy
discussions to a FACA exempt board is highly problematic. FACA is designed
to ensure that the public has access to government policy discussions -
especially those deiscussions invovling non-governmental employees.
Exempting this board from FACA removes requirements for publications of
meeting schedules and agendas. It blocks the interested public from
following government policy making on the issue -- as if there weren't
already enough governmental secrecy on these issues.
It is not clear to me from the statute what exactly this board is going to
do, or who they will be meeting with. It seems to be targetted at meetings
with industry, and does not address other stakeholders in cryptography and
security issues. It certainly doesn't address privacy concerns, and other
non-industy interests in cryptography.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lisa Kamm | opinions expressed are mine alone,
kamml@aclu.org | don't blame anyone else ....
