Re: TWO Letters on SAFE

[Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>]

This is indeed true - CDT sent a separate letter and signed the IPC letter.

As Marc Rotenberg knows very well, the legislative process is complicated.
Marc also knows that Goodlatte, Coble, Lofgren, and the other subcommittee
supporters of SAFE chose not to consider any amendments at the subcommittee
markup, but rather to take up our concerns at the full committee.

Goodlatte's staff and the other sponsors of SAFE had worked very hard to
prevent any amendments, hostile *and* friendly, at the subcommittee vote
for fear of hostile amendments from the Administration and opponents of
SAFE in the congress. A bill isn't worth much when it gets to the full
Committee if it gets gutted at the Subcommittee.  Goodlatte wanted to get
some momentum behind it before going into the expected all out fight at the
full committee.

CDT sent a separate letter to the subcommittee members focused on the
subcommittee markup urging the them to pass the bill without amendments.
The IPC letter was deliberately left vague with the intent of focusing on
the full Judiciary committee vote later this month.

We also signed the IPC letter to the full committee urging changes to the
criminal provision, and intend to work to see those changes through.

Jonah


At 11:33 AM -0500 5/2/97, Marc Rotenberg wrote:
>Shabbir is a very good organizer and often very busy, which
>may explain the confusion about the TWO letters that were
>sent out regarding SAFE.
>
>CDT sent a letter to Hon. Howard Conable, the chair of the
>Subcommittee, on April 24 which said that "CDT strongly urges
>you to report H.R. 695, the SAFE Act, out of the Courts
>and Intellectual Property Subcommittee without amendment."
>[The CDT letter is at
>http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_105/SAFE/970424_CDT_ltr.html]
>
>EPIC helped coordinate a different letter for the Internet
>Privacy Coalition, which went to Rep. Goodlatte on April
>28 and said
>
>     While expressing our support for the measure, we wish
>     also to state our concern about one provision contained
>     in the bill. We believe that this provision, which would
>     create new criminal penalties for the use of encryption in
>     furtherance of a crime, could undermine the otherwise laudable
>     goals of the legislation. For the reasons set forth below, we
>     recommend that this provision be reconsidered when the Committee
>     considers the bill.
>
>The IPC letter was signed by 26 privacy groups, user organizations,
>private companies, and trade associations. [The IPC letter is
>at http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html ]
>
>
>Marc Rotenberg
>EPIC.
>


* Value Your Privacy? The Governmet Doesn't.  Say 'No' to Key Escrow! *
            Adopt Your Legislator -  http://www.crytpo.com/adopt

--
Jonah Seiger, Communications Director              (v) +1.202.637.9800
Center for Democracy and Technology              pager +1.202.859.2151
<jseiger@cdt.org>
                                                    PGP Key via finger
http://www.cdt.org
http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger