[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Court proceedings under new SAFE act]

On Thu, Sep 11, 1997 at 06:12:15PM -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> I'm reading the bill more closely. This is incredibly slick work.
> 1. When it appears that any person is selling, importing, or distributing
> non-backdoor'd crypto or "about" to do so, the Atty General can sue to
> stop them. "Upon the filing of the complaint seeking injunctive relief by
> the Attorney General, the court shall automatically issue a temporary
> restraining order against the party being sued."

"distributing"  Does that include paper copies of source code?  How
about slowly and carefully reciting source code to an audience? 
Writing it on a blackboard, perhaps?

What if I respond to Adam Back and accidently forget to snip his .sig? 
(if that's not prior restraint, I don't know what is!)

> 2. There are provisions for closing the proceedings -- at the request of
> the "party against whom injunction is being sought." "Public disclosure of
> the proceedings shall be treated as contempt of court." Can also be closed
> if judge makes finding. 

This, of course, is what remailers are for.  More prior restraint, of

> You get notified not later than 90 days afterwards. There are a lot of
> other "checks and balances" here that will be touted as safeguards.

Who's being saved?

Fuck 'em.

Omegaman <mailto:[email protected]>|"When they kick out your front door,
   PGP Key fingerprint =        | How are you gonna come? 
   6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2      | With your hands upon your head,   
   59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63      | Or on the trigger of your gun?" 
Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton"
"Subject:" to get my public key |   _London_Calling_ , 1979