I'm quite astonished, shocked, and appalled at this serious frontal  assault on emerging American freedoms.  The Clinton administration  nor any other government agency has any legitimate role whatsoever  in regulating cryptography. To do so is tantamount to regulating  `acceptable' speech, and is blatantly unconstitutional. Perhaps we  should rename this year `1984' in honor of such an illustrious  proposal.  Let the Crappy Chip live in infamy, and the adminstration receive great shame and discredit for this bizarre misadventure.  I am outraged that my tax money is being used to develop technology to restrict my freedoms far beyond reasonable measures.  The U.S. government will have my full uncooperation and disobedience on any serious threat to my liberties such as this, and I call on everyone with an interest in a sensible government to resist and defy this  proposal.  The administration does not seem to understand that they are merely a subservient instrument to implement the will of the public, and hence anyone involved in this proposal in this respect is  wholly negligent and remiss in performing their lawful duty.  >While encryption >technology can help Americans protect business secrets and the >unauthorized release of personal information, it also can be used >by terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals.  It seems to me that U.S. Diplomatic communications should be  tappable by the U.N. whenever any countries produce a warrant to the U.N.  In fact, I think we should stop paying the NSA billions of dollars a year to produce unbreakable codes for this reason. These actions violate the sovereignity of international law. (I hope Mr. Clinton is shrewd enough to recognize my sarcasm and satire here. But if he isn't, it's a modest and reasonable proposal, so he should find merit with it nevertheless.)  Cryptography is neutral technology. If everybody has strong  cryptography (including policemen, bureacrats, businessmen,  housewives, thugs and hoodlums), we have a sustainable  equilibrium.  Anything less is an unworkable anti-egaltarian  arrangement, intrinsically antithetical to American freedoms, and guaranteed to collapse under its own weight of inherent  impracticality. We don't need to compromise on issues of freedom.  >For too long there has been little or no dialogue between our >private sector and the law enforcement community to resolve the >tension between economic vitality and the real challenges of >protecting Americans.  For too long our government has demonstrated itself to be  increasingly hostile and a serious obstacle to economic vitality  and protecting Americans.  >Since encryption technology will play an increasingly important >role in that infrastructure, the Federal Government must act >quickly to develop consistent, comprehensive policies regarding >its use.  The Administration is committed to policies that >protect all Americans' right to privacy while also protecting >them from those who break the law.  It is not possible for the Federal Government to ``act quickly'' or develop ``consistent, comprehensive policies'' PERIOD.  And even if by some grandiose miracle such a thing were possible, it would only be an efficient way to deprive American citizens of fundamental and inalienable rights.  The administration has to be committed to leaving private  industries alone, esp. on this issue.  The government has no  legitimate role in regulating the content of communications. Law enforcement agencies must be prepared to forfeit their surveillance bludgeon; they are soon and inevitably to be  disarmed of it.   >Q:   If the Administration were unable to find a technological >     solution like the one proposed, would the Administration be >     willing to use legal remedies to restrict access to more >     powerful encryption devices?  No such laws can be constitutionally sound, and this is equivalent to a veiled threat, which I don't appreciate.  This kind of  extortion tends to agitate me and others into radicalism. I will trade threats for threats, and violation for violation.  >     The Administration is not saying, "since encryption >     threatens the public safety and effective law enforcement, >     we will prohibit it outright" (as some countries have >     effectively done);  If the administration did say this, it would find itself  impeached for reckless and outrageous disregard of essential, established, entrenched, and explicit constitutional privacy  guarantees. The administration would have no legal standing  whatsoever; such an action would be egregiously illegal and criminal, and wholly untolerated and disregarded by vast  segments of the population.  >     nor is the U.S. saying that "every >     American, as a matter of right, is entitled to an >     unbreakable commercial encryption product."   The U.S., comprised of a vast majority of people fanatically  committed to preserving their privacy in the face of an  increasingly totalitarian government, is saying just that.   Take your chips and give them to NSA employees as Christmas bonuses. We can run any algorithm on our computers we damn well please,  and we will make any chips we please, and we will send any bit  pattern over our data highways we please. And if you try to stop  us, you will be gradually or abruptly dissolved into nothingness.  [privacy vs. law enforcement] >     There is a >     false "tension" created in the assessment that this issue is >     an "either-or" proposition.   This is an outright Dingaling Denning lie.  The two aims of privacy and surveillance are intrinsically and fundamentally  incompatible, and you have to work for the NSA to think otherwise.  Americans are about to discover ways, through the use of technology,  to preserve their inalienable but forgotten freedoms that have slowly  been eroded away by an increasingly distant and unresponsive and  *unrepresentative* government.  --