Re: [NOISE] Re: Dorothy Denning attacks Leahy's crypto bill

[dirsec <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 03:35 PM 3/20/96 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> > Has it occurred to you that the whole thing might not be a conspiracy and that the
> >flaws in the bill might just be that -- flaws?
> >Perry
> 
> This theory is easily testable.  As I suggested a LONG time ago (gee, 
> it must be at least a week now!) let's have a go at re-writing the bill 
> to delete all the bad parts, modify it to be good, add appropriate 
> extras to nail down everything, and present it to Leahy as the minimum 
> acceptable bill.  If those are just "flaws" then Leahy should have no 
> trouble with  any of this.  If, on the other hand, it's all a fraud, 
> we'll encounter fierce resistance.
> What do you think will happen?

I think Leahy will, quite rightly, refuse to adopt the new bill because 
it has a snowball's chance in hades of passing, and it makes him look 
soft on crime and terrorists.

But I'm sure Mr. Jim "legislative expert" Bell thought of this already 
and has 10,000 characters stored in a buffer just ready to dump into a 
letter which will dismiss this most basic of explanations.

> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com  

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"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