Re: CORRECTION on Clipper and Wash Post

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

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 10:25:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Nelson <mnelson () ostp eop gov>
Subject: Re: CORRECTION on Clipper and Wash Post
To: Mike Godwin <mnemonic () eff org>
Cc: interesting-people mailing list <interesting-people () eff org>,


Yes we did!  The background material stated explicitly that "the
Administration has no intention of changing current policies" that allow
any American to use any encryption device.  (Unfortunately, since we
cannot predict the outcome of future elections, we cannot predict what
might happen in the future.)


On Tue, 8 Feb 1994, Mike Godwin wrote:


John Schwartz writes:


>         A White House briefing paper quoted in the Feb. 5 Washington Post
> article about the new Clipper announcement was actually a Q and A
> originally released April 16, 1993 and included in the packet of
> information provided by the administration for last week's announcement.
> The administration did not announce on Feb. 4th that it retained the right
> to restrict alternate encryption plans for domestic use. A clarification
> will run in tomorrow's Washington Post.


That's true, but the Administration also did not retract its comment
from the April 16 Q-and-A.


Let's be clear about this. The Administration said on Friday that
it was not making Clipper mandatory. But the Administration has also
said that it does not believe that citizens have the right to
unbreakable encryption "as a matter of right." Nothing said on
Friday retracted the prior comment.


Remember, there's a difference between:


"The Administration did not say on Friday that it might consider banning
alternative encryption technologies"


and


"The Administration will not consider banning alternative encryption
technologies."






--Mike