Re: unsafe SAFE:

[Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>]

I believe Courtney got it wrong. Isn't it Pro-CODE that has the Info Board
provision? See:

  SEC. 6. INFORMATION SECURITY BOARD.
   
   (a) INFORMATION SECURITY BOARD TO BE ESTABLISHED- The Secretary shall
       establish an Information Security Board comprised of
       representatives of agencies within the Federal Government
       responsible for or involved in the formulation of information
       security policy, including export controls on products with
       information security features (including encryption). The Board
       shall meet at such times and in such places as the Secretary may
       prescribe, but not less frequently than quarterly. The Federal
       Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to the Board
       or to meetings held by the Board under subsection (d).

-Declan


On Tue, 13 May 1997 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

> according to http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10604,00.html
> 
>                 Kerrey's effort has one thing in common with the
>                 SAFE Act: It calls for the creation of an Information
>                 Security Board. The board proposal caused some
>                 privacy watchdogs to pull their endorsements of
>                 SAFE because it wouldn't have to comply with
>                 federal open-meeting act. 
> 
> 
> Since a common hand has presumably been at work in both bills,
> this looks like good cop / bad cop to me.
> 
> The good cop says, "I am your friend"
> 
> He is not your friend.
> 
> Create a federal board, and it will exercise power.
> 
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>               				|  
> We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
> and our property, because of the kind	|  
> of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
> derives from this right, not from the	|  
> arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com
> 
>