Re: FC: Congress weighs crypto-in-a-crime, wiretapping legislation

[Declan McCullagh]

Finally catching up on some email...

I didn't write the article; it was published in the National Review, a
weekly conservative newspaper
(http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel121500.shtml). I assume they
do at least rudimentary fact checking, and I believe David Kopel, the
author, to be a careful writer.

You can find the text of the "medal of valor" legislation, which
does not look like it passed during the 106th Congress, here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.46:

Of interest to the list is the crypto-in-a-crime provision:
(c) AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO USE OF ENCRYPTION-
Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United
States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the
Federal sentencing guidelines and, if appropriate, shall promulgate
guidelines or policy statements or amend existing policy statements to
ensure that the guidelines provide sufficiently stringent penalties to
deter and punish persons who intentionally use encryption in
connection with the commission or concealment of criminal acts
sentenced under the guidelines.

Similar language was included in some of the "crypto liberalization"
bills such as SAFE in the past.

-Declan


On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 10:00:52AM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
 Declan, I've looked at the floor activity for that day, and searched 
 the house record [Page: H12100 et seq].  I cannot find any mention of
 HR.46, or "encryption", or "wiretapping".  I also looked at every
 reference to the word "computer", which appears frequently.
 
 Could your sources be more specific as to how this was passed? 
 
 Sometimes, it's better to say "Senate" when you mean only the Senate, 
 and give specific names of supporters (Stevens, Hatch), rather than 
 tarring the whole "Congress" with bills that are going nowhere.
 

Re: FC: Congress weighs crypto-in-a-crime, wiretapping legislation

[William Allen Simpson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

Declan, I've looked at the floor activity for that day, and searched 
the house record [Page: H12100 et seq].  I cannot find any mention of
HR.46, or "encryption", or "wiretapping".  I also looked at every
reference to the word "computer", which appears frequently.

Could your sources be more specific as to how this was passed? 

Sometimes, it's better to say "Senate" when you mean only the Senate, 
and give specific names of supporters (Stevens, Hatch), rather than 
tarring the whole "Congress" with bills that are going nowhere.

Yes, there is a certain amount of silliness and mislabelling that was 
passed Dec. 15.  S.2924 on "false identification" had all the text 
on identification removed, and replaced with a relaxation of child 
labor restrictions.  That kind of thing can catch members unawares.
My understanding is that's on the way to a pocket veto.

``Children's Internet Protection Act'' (CIPA) passed as part of 
HR.4577, and read in a certain way, it's pretty bad for civil 
liberties, but no restrictions on encryption that I can see.  

There's an easy work-around to CIPA that was adopted here in Ann Arbor.  

The AA public library _will_ provide a filtering program, when it 
becomes commercially available, which can be programmed to reject those 
sites that have been determined by a court of law to be obscene, etc.  
Only those sites!  And, in order for the program to be activated, the 
child must be accompanied by a parent.  No court decision, no parent, 
no need for protection.

I'm a bit more concerned by the so-called ``Neighborhood Children's 
Internet Protection Act'' that follows CIPA.  As far as I can tell, 
it requires every site to continuously review and record all activity 
on the 'net, in order to determine "access by minors to inappropriate 
matter", "using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct 
electronic communications", "unauthorized access", "unauthorized 
disclosure ... of personal identification information".

The "inappropriate matter" standard seems much broader than "harmful".

Also, it appears to be an attempt to prohibit judicial review of the 
local criteria for determination of content.  "No agency or 
instrumentality of the United States Government" presumably includes 
the federal courts. 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5.1

iQCVAwUBOktVVdm/qMj6R+sxAQGMBgQAhxsXn4yJ2tD3caqfNOz5PhIM4MY3fOKP
Vrl7HVBSdYXen4DZ5YOrBeTblamHa1a9TElJJ5NVvVcqdxeEXk1QE+x7UZuUL92O
B+S0b4DtxzYezGHf5NLN0pzdzM+ZjmHnwIdvsnTSBNX3bDgIu/eKrbxpGAj4tTMX
fwMzJo61s9Y=
=zexu
-END PGP SIGNATURE-