[5216] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: House committee ditches SAFE for law enforcement version
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Sommerfeld)
Mon Jul 26 09:02:31 1999
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us>
To: Dan Geer <geer@world.std.com>
Cc: Marc Horowitz <marc@MIT.EDU>, cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: Message from Dan Geer <geer@world.std.com>
of "Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:49:29 EDT." <199907251849.AA02856@world.std.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 07:31:45 -0400
[CC:'s to list I don't subscribe to deleted.]
one possible escape clause here is a constitutional provision
regarding immunity of legislators for acts in congress:
[from article 1, section 6]
".. for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be
questioned in any other place."
.. so, as I read it, the only entity capable of enforcing the gag
order (i.e., preventing a legislator from repeating what he heard in
the closed briefing in a subsequent open legislative session) is the
congress itself, and that, likely, only after the fact.
But then again, i'm not a lawyer, and I'm also not sure how this
provision has been interpreted in the past..
- Bill
