[7157] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Hidden "secret search" provision in the meth bill & two
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Declan McCullagh)
Tue May 23 16:04:21 2000
Message-Id: <4.3.0.20000523102329.01a20420@pop.webcom.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:37:16 -0400
To: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>, cryptography@c2.net, jya@pipeline.com
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@wired.com>
In-Reply-To: <200005230142.SAA18206@toad.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I mentioned the "secret search" provisions in the meth bill before the
House Judiciary committee in a May 9 article:
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,36209,00.html
This is similar to a letter from Reno in January that said cops could do
secret searches and seizures (in the context of snatching private keys)
without new legislation:
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,33779,00.html
In my weekly column last week I mentioned the meth vote in House Judiciary
still hadn't happened, probably due to pressure from drug legalization
activists:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,36452,00.html
The CDT letter is more detailed, but I've placed an ACLU "suggested
amendments to the meth bill" letter here:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/meth-aclu.050800.html
-Declan
At 18:42 5/22/2000 -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
>I have not verified this, but if true, time is of the essence.
>It's time to HOWL to your Congressmen to stop them!
>
>Whenever you read one of those "clerical amendments" that inserts
>phrases into other parts of other laws -- watch out! Somebody is
>trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
>
> John
