<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
On 3/7/20 9:41 PM, Greg Maxwell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAS2fgS=ctX86kj-AYaJrinmA3O4-aaPQdQhCNaUNV7Fj1bf0g@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">FWIW, the author of that article is the former general council for the
NSA and both he and and his firm have a more than 25 year history[1]
of advocacy against the public's access to effective, non-backdoored,
cryptography.
The article attempts to argue that EARN IT isn't a move against the
public's access to end to end encryption, but I view the fact that
Stewart Baker has bothered writing on it to be pretty strong sign--
more than anything else I've seen so far-- that at attack on the
availability of end-to-end encryption is exactly what it is.
[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/clipper/ny-debate-jan-19-95.txt">https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/clipper/ny-debate-jan-19-95.txt</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<b>Dear Greg: </b> You have shared a very good point, indeed... and
thank you, for that!<br>
<br>
The brief list that I posted just before, was to simply share the
type of argumentations now being presented from various directions.
Needless to say, all of this, and much more - is publicly
available. It remains my hope that our posts might stimulate a
healthy and diverse discussion on the prospective role of encryption
-- going forward. <br>
<br>
For instance, the proposed legislation, should it become law, will
direct the U.S. Attorney General to be both AGENT and ARBITER in the
preservation of "government's interest". To that end, the AG is to
be empowered to adduce and make changes to "best practices" -
proposed by the 'to be seated' 15 member Commission. We could
therefore, ask: how such a proposition could characteristically
alter the nature and the role of "government" (of the people, by the
people, and for the people), governance structures and powers
(enumerated, implied and inherent)?<br>
<br>
Adjacently, I would like to note that one of the sponsors of the
bill had once proposed that the U.S. must have a Privacy Law, "...as
strong as California's". (<a
href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-privacy-congress/key-senator-says-federal-privacy-bill-should-be-as-strong-as-californias-idUSKBN1QT2IC">https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-privacy-congress/key-senator-says-federal-privacy-bill-should-be-as-strong-as-californias-idUSKBN1QT2IC</a>).<br>
<br>
Lastly Greg, I have dared to share my sentiment on the proposal
(such as it is), as the ending statement, in the previous post.<br>
<br>
All my best.<br>
--<br>
<font color="#b3b3b3"><i><br>
Dr. Robert Mathews, D.Phil.<br>
Principal Technologist &<br>
</i><i>Distinguished Senior Research Scholar</i><i><br>
</i><i>Office of Scientific Inquiry & Applications (OSIA)</i><i><br>
</i><i>University of Hawai'i</i></font><br>
</body>
</html>