From: Anonymous User <nobody@c2.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 94 10:51:35 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: National Research Council
Message-ID: <199409231749.KAA14054@zero.c2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Mr. Karn said:

/From: Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>
/To: SAMUEL.KAPLIN@warehouse.mn.org

/>Is it me or are there a disproportionate amount of legal/government/military/
/>types on this list?  Keeping this in mind, do you really think any of our
/>comments will go anywhere but in the old circular file?

/My thoughts exactly. The committee's classification/clearance policy
/was undoubtedly intended to skew its membership much more than to
/protect any legitimate government secret. After all, they're supposed
/to be discussing openly available civilian encryption technologies.

/Funny how the most obvious, no-brainer public policy questions always
/seem to generate the most controversy...

And what, pray tell, is per se wrong with "legal types"?

Why do you think Bollinger, Hellman, Neumann, Patel are knee-jerk 
non-liberals?  (Or even Civiletti for that matter, he's reasonable).

OK there are no *radicals* but what do you expect from the establishment?

I think you will get a respectful hearing if you make sensible comments.  
I have no doubt that you personallly will do the latter.

SOLONg