[87079] in Cypherpunks
Re: Oxley Amendment
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Declan McCullagh)
Thu Sep 25 13:07:06 1997
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.BSF.3.96.970925071158.21770B-100000@pakastelohi.cypherpunks.to>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:29:24 -0400
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Cc: Michael Brock <hrast@flash.net>, cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Reply-To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Lucky has it right. SAFE is extremely unlikely to go to the floor without
additional "compromise."
Then there's the "compromise" with whatever bill the Senate coughs up.
Remember that pro-crypto legislation is dead there; only McCain-Kerrey got
out of committee. Also remember the Senate is more conservative...
Then there's the reality that no pro-crypto legislation would get past a
presidential veto...
-Declan
At 07:16 -0700 9/25/97, Lucky Green wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Michael Brock wrote:
>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I wonder if Mr. Solomon of NY will rethink his decision to not bring
>> up SAFE without Oxley to the entire House after the unprecedented
>> coaltion of companies and individual groups that came together to
>> make sure that mandatory key recovery stays a "1984" like dream. I
>> find it incomprehensible that one man, would block the introduction
>> of this bill, after it being proved that this is what his
>> constituents want....
>
>What in the world makes you believe that Mr. Solomon's constituents would
>want SAFE to go the the floor? SAFE *must* be defeated, with or without
>the Oxley ammendment.
>
>-- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred.
> "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"
