From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 17:50:31 +0800
To: jimbell@pacifier.com
Subject: Re: Leahy's guillotine.
Message-ID: <01I26QG1VLNCAKTUBC@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"jimbell@pacifier.com"  "jim bell"  9-MAR-1996 21:27:52.24

>Further, any organization with even a shred of credibility that does not 
>condition its support for this bill on the complete removal of this section 
>is doing the rest of us an extreme disservice:  It is trading on and risking
>its reputation, because many of them are issuing opinions of this section of
>the bill with assurances that it will only be used against "guilty" people,
>when there is simply no way to know if this is going to be true.

	Either complete removal _or_ replacement with something clearly stating
the preferable interpretation (only for cryptography knowingly used by a person
committing a felony to conceal the commission of that felony). The latter,
while not as good as the former (why should there be additional charges for
using cryptography for concealment of a felony?), is acceptable with the other
portions of the bill counterweighing it.
	-Allen