-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >|| 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.
Their "speciality" in this case is making laws. If they are not capable of
or willing to make an effort to comprehend that which they are
legislating, then they are negligent in their duties.
One needs not be an initiate in an elite secret society to understand the
principles behing digital signatures, email spoofing, and other easily
comprehended issues that should be addressed by our lawmakers.
It is not the responsibility of anyone on this list to educate the HR. It
is not our fault that they are uneducated. In fact, I know several people
on this list who have taken time and made efforts to increase awareness of
the benefits and issues involved with the usage of cryptography, digital
identities, and the Internet by speaking to groups of government
officials.
The fundamental problem here is a lack of initiative on the part of said
lawmakers; without a desire to educate themselves, they will remain
ignorant. You cannot force anyone to learn something that they do not
desire to attempt to understand. It just won't work.
> 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.
Poppycock. The legislative bodies have not taken the necessary steps to
understand cryptography and the issues involved. This is the reason that
"every governmental foray into cryptographic legislation" has been
ridiculed. Every governmental foray into cryptographic legislation has
been rediculous up to and including the latest bill.
Has anyone here ever been asked to advise a legislator or a legislator's
staff? Were they actually interested in learning what you could teach
them?
- -MW-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (FreeBSD)
Comment: No comment.
iQEVAwUBOVegqysFU3q6vVI9AQHIuwf+LFrXt6MoDr5hsfLRRpHHC9GNle0aBctv
CvoA/jTLRSLDkp+dwpEytgLUZsPJe/tw7XPl0shzrINWWVh8G4jQwUBgi1aez4V5
iwoAmE9N/vwXWm/OkblzYQc9MdPWbN1DS69SqNL9l+AWHVoKKllCvrfErWaiVXhB
CFZp9+nWVTKmt4b4mLeyUJaQSS8DDd9+wbd3vbnso3TBmXVd9kopYUsvFgKX3ote
7nXLPTdkiCl9ycepXQ+k5QC1AmunlL6mhd6LX9wNTumfEFKnygepV3mr4tdyX3zW
RIBP6424ecNUqAy7tBIVh49ySj17O8wwMX0n2GYC4vlkA+6pgtiEjA==
=LLqt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
