IP: Realpolitics -- re: IP: Stop the Big Brother Amendment,

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

PLEASE read both these djf [btw I believe ral politics is called for and
that means fighting on the house floor to kill the whole mess]


From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
To: David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>


Dave,


You forwarded a joint crypto-alert that read in part:


> Other amendments may be proposed.  Please urge the Congressman to pass SAFE
> "as is" and oppose any amendments.


It's interesting that the alert says to "oppose any amendments" to the
SAFE encryption bill. The "as is" version of SAFE includes the first-ever
domestic restrictions on encryption!


Specifically, it includes very severe criminal penalties for the use of
encryption in a crime. But when encryption is in everything from light
switches to door knobs, any crime will include crypto. I've heard some say
it would be like criminalizing "breathing air in the commission of a
crime..." Groups like the ACLU, EPIC, and the Cato Institute -- not to
mention the cypherpunks! -- have long opposed such a measure.


AND 


From: Stanton McCandlish <mech () eff org>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:50:28 -0700 (PDT)


The short version of why the alert says "pass SAFE 'as-is'" is that the
Commerce Cmte. will pass *something*.  They'd laugh in our faces if we
said "don't pass SAFE at all". The bill has over 250 co-sponsors.  Ergo we
can ask them to do two things, reasonably: pass SAFE as-is, or pass the
FBI wish-list version.  Killing SAFE completely is something that will
have to be tried on the House floor, not in the Commerce Cmte.



--
Stanton McCandlish                                           mech () eff org
Electronic Frontier Foundation                           Program Director