Re: LIST OF SHAME VOLUNTEERS

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 01:22 AM 3/25/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:

> >I spoke to a couple folks about this at the CDA hearings in Philadelphia
> >last week. Word on the streets from those who would know is that the
> >Leahy Bill has NOT A CHANCE IN HELL of passing, and so is worth
> >supporting to raise awareness of crypto.
> 
> This is a dangerous position to take.  Many people have killed 
> themselves, accidentally, thinking "the gun isn't loaded!"

Let's put this to bed.  The bill isn't going to pass.  Let's PRETEND it 
gets sent to the Select Committee on Intelligence, which would be it's 
most favorable Committee speed wise (I seem to remember it got sent to 
commerce instead?), they have about 30 days to hash it through and spit 
it out.  That leaves 10 or so days to work out the bugs and pass the 
bill and then some 5 days to rectify with the house version?  Puhleeeease. 

> This said, I see nothing wrong with fixing and improving the bill and 
> only then supporting it.

Except that no one is going to fix it, and no one is going to support it 
if fixed in the way that Mr. Bell proposes.  In other words, everything is 
wrong with 'fixing it.'

Leahy is about as far left on technology as they come. (One of 4-5 (I 
forget) who actually opposed Exon).  I spoke with legislative counsel 
today and brought up the issue.  The bill is dead.  Even Dole, who's on 
as a sponsor, has no idea what's in the text.  He signed on to look 
connected and on the cutting edge for the upcoming election.  The 
slightest pressure from Specter and the Powerful Intelligence Committee 
(which you can count on), will send Dole running for cover quite 
quickly.  (Dole then will be able to claim techno-savvy as well as law 
and order headcracking).

> >After DT and Clipper, it's our chance to put Clinton and the DoJ on the
> >defensive for a change.
> 
> If the Leahy bill "has not a chance in hell" of passing, then what's 
> wrong with CORRECTING it.  Given this assessment,I doubt whether such 
> changes would reduce its chances.

Your tax dollars at work.  More useless legislative rambling to make Mr. 
Bell happy.  If the bill isn't adopted this session, nothing but a full 
rewrite is likely to revive it.  That rewrite is going to be next 
session and go to the right, not the left.  Mr. Bell persists in 
demanding a politically unviable re-write.  To Mr. Bell I say: "Write 
your Senator.

> BTW, remember that one of the reasons its chances are rated as "not a 
> chance in hell" is that the two constituencies who might normally 
> support this bill, the crypto/software businesses and ourselves, see its 
> promises as being weak and its negatives as being large. Without them, 
> who else is there to support it?

I've now answered this question 3 times.  Maybe Mr. Bell finally 
killfiled me.

> 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