1995-09-11 - Re: Senate Bill 974?

Header Data

From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Message Hash: 5c39220775a3e0a0de2d37a1818ed4909e3f9533f602513cee4863630a56f8d3
Message ID: <9509110058.AA24206@cs.umass.edu>
Reply To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.950910183148.5633A-100000@usis.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-09-11 00:58:13 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 17:58:13 PDT

Raw message

From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 17:58:13 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: Senate Bill 974?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.950910183148.5633A-100000@usis.com>
Message-ID: <9509110058.AA24206@cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


David Neal writes:
> Haven't seen it discussed here, but the August 28, 1995 issue of Lan
> Times covers Sen. Charles Grassley's (R-IOWA) Senate Bill 974.

Actually, we considered S.974 (the Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995)
here in excruciating detail a couple of months ago. Check the archives from
e.g. July.

At last report, the bill had been referred to committee. If/when it ever
emerges from subcommittee, there's cause for concern. No mention of it has
been made in the Congressional Record since Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona joined
as a cosponsor in late July. It doesn't currently appear on the unofficial
list of "hot bills" on Thomas -- "bills that have received or are receiving 
floor action and/or debate in the United States Congress" 
(http://thomas.loc.gov/home/hot-bill.html)  Hopefully it has died in
committee, as more pressing matters have taken precedence.

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>




Thread