IP: Re: Problems with SAFE and ProCODE -- the man has a point

[David Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:12:54 -0400


To: farber@cis.upenn.edu


From: Jock Gill <<jgill@penfield-gill.com>


Subject: Re: IP: Problems with SAFE and ProCODE 




Dave,




As a tax payer, I would demand that the US Government require that its
employees, paid with our tax dollars, used a US Government approved key
escrow/recovery solution.  There is not only a law about records
management and their recovery, but ask investigative reporters about the
problem if US Government workers could encrypt their public documents and
forever hide them away.  It would be a disaster for a democratic process
accountable to the citizens.




As for the rest of us, there should be no limits on what we do or do not
use.




Businesses, of course, will insist on key recover to protect them from
liability and to prove their intellectual property assertions against
false claims etc.




This issue has no yes/no binary solution.  As Oscar Wilde wrote, the
truth is rarely simple and never pure.






At 12:22 PM 6/17/97 -0400, you wrote:


>Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:19:42 -0700 (PDT)


>From: Declan McCullagh <<declan@well.com>


>


>Dave,


>


>I've read a lot of posts on IP about the House and


>Senate bills (SAFE and ProCODE) that have been said to


>eliminate export controls on encryption products. But


>in reality they're much less beneficial and, some say,


>even dangerous.


>


>IP readers may remember that EFF is leading one of the


>challenges to the export rules on behalf of Prof.


>Bernstein. I interviewed his lawyers recently, who told


>me that if not fixed SAFE and ProCODE might not help


>Bernstein's ability to teach and publish about


>cryptography -- and could even hurt Bernstein's case.


>


>My report is at:


>


>  http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1022,00.html


>


>It's timely to keep this in mind as the chairman of the


>Senate Judiciary committee is talking about requiring


>key escrow in specific circumstances. He could block


>ProCODE or add such a provision to legislation


>already in his committee. And the chair of Senate


>Commerce appears willing to reach a compromise with


>the administration.


>


>Also, oral arguments in the Bernstein case are set


>for 10:30 AM this Wednesday, June 18 before Judge


>Patel in Federal District Court in San Francisco.


>


>-Declan


>


>


>


>


>


>******Remember  19 June in San Fran******


>


>Look at http://www.eff.org/fillmore


>


>


<center>________________________________________________________________________


Jock Gill


Penfield Gill, Inc.


Boston,  MA


jgill@penfield-gill.com           


<<http://www.penfield-gill.com>


</center>      
________________________________________________________________________








******Remember  19 June in San Fran******


Look at http://www.eff.org/fillmore