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

RE: Oxley Amendment

I believe (as I am sure most here do) that crypto of any strength will become illegal, and that anyone sending a message in Pig Latin will soon be shot on sight by FBI the "protecting" our rights...

Any control on encyrption, domestic or exportable, is unacceptable in today's high computing power society...  Mandatory key escrow, well, you thought the IRS was corrupt...

"Have you cracked RC5 today?"

-----Original Message-----
From:	Declan McCullagh [SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent:	Thursday, September 25, 1997 10:29 AM
To:	Lucky Green
Cc:	Michael Brock; [email protected]
Subject:	Re: Oxley Amendment

Lucky has it right. SAFE is extremely unlikely to go to the floor without
additional "compromise."

Then there's the "compromise" with whatever bill the Senate coughs up.
Remember that pro-crypto legislation is dead there; only McCain-Kerrey got
out of committee. Also remember the Senate is more conservative...

Then there's the reality that no pro-crypto legislation would get past a
presidential veto...


At 07:16 -0700 9/25/97, Lucky Green wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Michael Brock wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> I wonder if Mr. Solomon of NY will rethink his decision to not bring
>> up SAFE without Oxley to the entire House after the unprecedented
>> coaltion of companies and individual groups that came together to
>> make sure that mandatory key recovery stays a "1984" like dream.   I
>> find it incomprehensible that one man, would block the introduction
>> of this bill, after it being proved that this is what his
>> constituents want....
>What in the world makes you believe that Mr. Solomon's constituents would
>want SAFE to go the the floor? SAFE *must* be defeated, with or without
>the Oxley ammendment.
>-- Lucky Green <[email protected]> PGP encrypted email preferred.
>   "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"