From: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 07:13:26 +0800
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <QQahxs05105.199603210105@relay3.UU.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Excerpted from a message to fight-censorship. For the full thread, check out:

       http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?thread
       =The+Leahy+Crypto+Bill+is+Rancid+Sausage&after=1795&type=short

(On one line, of course.)

-Declan


---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
Message-Id: <199603190315.TAA05777@eff.org>
To: declan+@CMU.EDU (Declan B. McCullagh)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 19:15:09 -0800 (PST)
Cc: fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu, junger@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu,
        tcmay@got.net


[...]

As our statement on the bill made clear, *EFF does not support the Leahy 
bill*, nor do we endorse it, like it, find it useful or any other synonym.
We're happy to see the issues raise again, a la Cantwell, but we 
specifically recommended simple and complete deregulation. As our 
co-founder John Gilmore points out, the Leahy bill as written 
pre-supposes Congressional authority to legislate in this are, and 
Executive authority to regulate under that legislation. These are notions 
that we, and Phil Karn, are challenging in court with Constitutional 
tests we are throwing at the ITAR export regs.

[...]