Re: Oxley Amendment

[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>]

Lucky has it right. SAFE is extremely unlikely to go to the floor without
additional "compromise."

Then there's the "compromise" with whatever bill the Senate coughs up.
Remember that pro-crypto legislation is dead there; only McCain-Kerrey got
out of committee. Also remember the Senate is more conservative...

Then there's the reality that no pro-crypto legislation would get past a
presidential veto...

-Declan


At 07:16 -0700 9/25/97, Lucky Green wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Michael Brock wrote:
>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I wonder if Mr. Solomon of NY will rethink his decision to not bring
>> up SAFE without Oxley to the entire House after the unprecedented
>> coaltion of companies and individual groups that came together to
>> make sure that mandatory key recovery stays a "1984" like dream.   I
>> find it incomprehensible that one man, would block the introduction
>> of this bill, after it being proved that this is what his
>> constituents want....
>
>What in the world makes you believe that Mr. Solomon's constituents would
>want SAFE to go the the floor? SAFE *must* be defeated, with or without
>the Oxley ammendment.
>
>-- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred.
>   "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"