>|| The House people had talked extensively about digital signatures,
>|| when the bill is in fact about electronic signatures ...
>
> This is a pretty sad state of affairs. We don't really expect the elected
> members of Congress to know very much, but it is alarming to find out the
> staff can't (or won't) do a decent job, either.
i'm sorry, but this is a foolish complaint. their specialty
is as demanding as ours; why demand that they should master
our specialty, when we make no effort to master theirs, and
when we make no effort to help them understand crypto? all
we've had to say to legislators and regulators is, "don't
regulate crypto, leave us alone," and then surprise, surprise:
even when we might want them to support crypto with laws,
they don't know enough about crypto to be able to regulate
it.
if we are successful in making crypto that's usable enough to
become pervasive, then industry and the public will need new
laws to help resolve social conflicts involving crypto, such
as inevitably will arise. thus, it's our responsibility to
help advise legislators constructively on cryptographic and
security matters, but the civilian crypto community has quite
consistently rejected and ridiculed every governmental foray
into cryptographic legislation. indeed, the crypto community
goes further, by ridiculing any cryptographer or security
expert who supports legislative efforts. we're the ones who
have screwed this up, not the legislators or their staffers.
- don davis, boston
-
