[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
How the FBI/NSA forces can further twist SAFE
I'm sure others can expand on this, but to me the big four inflection
points seem to be:
1. In the version of the SAFE bill the House Rules committee chooses. There
are now four substantially different versions. We have: the "original" SAFE
(with criminal penalties for crypto-in-a-crime); SAFE with domestic
crypto-controls; SAFE with its export relaxation section gutted;
yesterday's SAFE with more studies and doubled criminal penalties. This is
likely to be done in closed-room negotiations with the heads of Judiciary,
Intelligence, etc. I'm told that the first meetings are already being
scheduled. The House leadership will play a big role in anything the Rules
2. In the way the House Rules committee reports the bill. Which amendments
will be allowed during floor debate, and in what order?
3. There are countless points during the Senate proceedings where FBI/NSA
can work on the legislation. McCain-Kerrey will probably go to the Senate
Intelligence committee, for instance. It's sure to go through Judiciary,
where Kyl and Feinstein are waiting eagerly. Sen. "Digital Telephony"
Leahy, whose original crypto-bill last year was a key escrow fetishist's
wet dream, is sure to get involved.
4. Conference committee between the Senate and House versions.
Underlying all this is the threat of a presidential veto. What pro-crypto
legislation can survive it? That will give the FBI/NSA more leverage when
pushing for their kind of "compromise." Especially because of the slothful
speed of the Senate, the process will take close to a year, probably.
At 08:45 -0700 9/25/97, Lucky Green wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Lee Tien wrote:
>> I'd love to see a simple map/diagram of all the inflection points where the
>> FBI/NSA forces can further twist SAFE. Call it morbid curiosity. Last
>> year's model was bad, and it's only gotten worse.
>Such a diagram would be interesing to have. Not everybody watched "How a
>bill becomes law". :-) And there is sigificant interest in this issue from
>our international readers that are not as familiar with the political
>process in the US as perhaps some of us US citizens are.
The Netly News Network