[775] in WWW Security List Archive
Re: More restrictive controls on cryptography proposed in US Senate
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Miller)
Mon Jul 17 17:54:21 1995
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 12:48:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <isdmill@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us>
To: Albert Lunde <Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu>
cc: mjmarkowitz@attmail.com, www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <199507160205.AA083500344@lulu.acns.nwu.edu>
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
On Sat, 15 Jul 1995, Albert Lunde wrote:
> I might agree with some of your misgivings... I don't want to overstate
> matters, but I'm not convinced things _can't_ get worse. This is
> recent enough news you may have to judge for yourself.
>
> If you send for the message I refered to, it has the text of the bill...
> they claim quoted from the congressional record... I can't find another
> copy online yet to verify this. The phase "universal decoding device"
> is right out of the bill:
Check out: http://thomas.loc.gov/
or
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r104query.html
Enter "universal decoding". The quoted text most definately comes up,
with the "universal decoding device" hilighted.
>
> >(c) It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
> >section that the software at issue used a universal decoding device
> >or program that was provided to the Department of Justice prior to
> >the distribution.'.
> --
> Albert Lunde Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when
one doesn't know what one can't do!
