[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Sen. Specter and Kerry move to delay crypto legislation
On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, jim bell wrote:
> At 06:19 PM 6/21/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
> >> >> Since "everybody" is supposed to agree that the Leahy encryption bill is
> >> >To which which Leahy Bill are you referring?
> >>
> >> The one introduced on February 26, 1996.
> >
> >I think the above message was refering to "procode" however.
> Certainly not by name. It merely referred to legislation that Leahy "sponsored."
> Leahy _did_ seem to act like he was in favor of the Burns bill, as well,
> after ECPA got the bad press, and maybe he's a co-sponsor of the Procode
> bill as well. Even so, the letter did not appear to be CC:'d to Burns, so I
> conclude that it was intended to refer to at least the ECPA, if not both bills.
Specter wrote to Leahy because the two of them get along well. (Recall
the Clipper hearings for example) and because Specter and Burns do not.
It may also explain things to realize that Leahy wrote the circular asking
for other Senators to support the bill. Specter is probably responding to
that.
Leahy's office has been the point unit for crypto initatives because their
legal staff are the only ones who really understand what is going on or
are able to answer questions intelligently.
Be careful with your assumptions and take replies to e-mail please.
>
> Jim Bell
> [email protected]
>
---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:[email protected]
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: [email protected]