On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Anonymous wrote:
> There are troublesome aspects to the SAFE bill, but this notion that it
> is only for companies and won't benefit individual software developers
> appears to be false. It would be helpful to know where this idea came
> from, and to see what is behind it.
I believe this idea comes from the conduct of the discussion/debate
surrounding domestic and export controls on crypto - it's usually framed
as a dispute between financial/business interests and national
security/law enforcement interests, and the players involved work to find
compromises between the two (apparently conflicting) interests.
Current law and policy attempts to limit the use of cryptography by
limiting its production and distribution, leaving end uses unrestricted.
The compromises (like SAFE) proposed by the business/law enforcement axis
shift the locus of control from the producer/distribtor to the end user -
distributors will not be primarily responsible for eliminating unpopular
or forbidden uses of crypto, end users will.
Producers/distributors of crypto like that shifting of the control point
to the end user because their own regulatory burden is significantly
lessened (modulo continued restrictions on academic and non-economic
distributions of crypto, per Ian Goldberg and Jim Gillogly's messages),
and they're likely to see wider sales/distribution as a result. Law
enforcement doesn't mind (terribly), even though they'll kick and scream,
because while the controls will be less effective (e.g., total compliance
rates will go down) they'll gain extra funding, expanded investigatory
power, and better prosecutorial leverage through the additional "crypto
for a crime" charges that all of the proposed bills create.
End users may not be as pleased with the changes, as they're suddenly the
focus of new restrictions and regulatory activity. End users,
unfortunately, don't have much of a lobby; and they're difficult to
"compromise" with, since many of their positions rest on fundamental
rights, which shouldn't be compromisable. Unfortunately, the vocabulary of
rights and freedom is unintelligible in Congress - it's necessary to talk
about dollars and jobs (and children and fear) to construct a meaningful
sentence, which has led us to the current set of business vs. national
security compromises.
Of course, since end-user control of crypto won't work any better than it
does with firearms or drugs (or other politically incorrect technologies),
we're likely to see a return to source control within a few years - but
the end user controls (granted as quid pro quo for the reduction of source
control) won't be removed, because by that point it'll be obvious that our
problems were caused by inadequate government intervention into ordinary
human lives, so a reduction of that intervention certainly won't be seen
as appropriate.
Also, on an unrelated note, I understand that both houses in Congress are
considering a fast-track bill to outlaw the transfer or sale of
thermometers to frogs or other amphibians without a license from BTA.
--
Greg Broiles
[EMAIL PROTECTED]