Re: CORRECTION on Clipper and Wash Post reply from

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

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic>
To: mnelson () ostp eop gov (Mike Nelson)
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 02:08:31 -0500 (EST)
Cc: interesting-people () eff org, mnelson () ostp eop gov




Mike Nelson writes:


> 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.


Indeed it does, but that's not the point of my comment.


> (Unfortunately, since we
> cannot predict the outcome of future elections, we cannot predict what
> might happen in the future.)


You also can't predict whether, prior to future elections, your minds will
change. I know from talking personally to high-level representatives of the law
enforcement community that allowing anyone to have alternative unbreakable
encryption is a sore point.


Your current comments leave you wiggle room on this point. You can always
say "We said we had no intention of banning alternatives, but that was
before Crisis X occurred." What you don't do is *commit* to always allowing
alternatives. And what you do is attempt to create an economic environment
in which alternatives are suppressed by economic forces.


And you've put this policy in place without explaining your reasons.


I note that you do not respond to my other point:


> On Tue, 8 Feb 1994, Mike Godwin wrote:
> > 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.


Nor have you answered the questions I posed earlier. For example,
isn't it true that the Administration is hoping to suppress the
market for encryption alternatives?






--Mike