[5185] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: House committee ditches SAFE for law enforcement version
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Declan McCullagh)
Thu Jul 22 11:01:37 1999
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:42:20 -0400
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>, cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, cryptography@c2.net
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@wired.com>
In-Reply-To: <v03130307b3bc5678731e@[207.111.241.154]>
Right. Some of the congresscritters who voted yesterday for the natsec
version of SAFE were ostensible supporters of the business version.
True, this particular natsec version of SAFE doesn't include domestic
controls -- plenty of time for Freeh to try that later -- but export
relief? Fuggetaboutit.
The sponsor of yesterday's amendment, Rep. Weldon, said that he wants to
have a classified briefing //on the House floor// to scare members into
voting his way. Look for killer amendments to SAFE to be offered during
that floor vote, perhaps even ones with domestic controls.
But, heck, at least this fuss keeps business lobbyists, well, in business.
(I was at an FTC hearing Tuesday and by the afternoon it was winding down,
fairly useless panel discussions were dragging on. But a lobbyist for a
multibillion Internet company told me he wasn't going to leave. "No fucking
way -- I'm billing by the hour.")
-Declan
At 10:06 PM 7-21-99 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>>http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20872.html
>Precisely what many of us have been saying for years would likely happen.
>The feebs in Congress are so uncommitted to fundamental philosophies that
>they really don't even know what they are voting on. A "War with Oceania"
>resolution can become a "War with Eastasia" resolution just because a
>couple of the feebs want to get out to the Chevy Chase Golf and Country
>Club to tee off.
