From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 15:30:00 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Leahy bill dead?
Message-ID: <199605082328.QAA06492@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Maybe this seems a bit redundant, but is it generally agreed "out there" 
that the Leahy bill is dead?  

When originally proposed, the conventional wisdom around here was that the 
Clinton Maladministration was going to be dead-set against it. (Not a bad 
guess...)  It was also claimed that it couldn't be changed to fix it.  
(although one of the nyms that claimed this hasn't been seen around here 
since then...)    Since then, most if not all of the people and groups who 
might otherwise have been in favor of it have, likewise, turned against it.  
And while the Burns bill isn't totally out of the woods, I assume "we" (the 
people on the right side of the cryto argument)  can all agree that it is at 
least better than Leahy's booby-trap.  

So does that spell the end of the Leahy bill?  The reason I mention this is 
because it was my suspicion that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the 
"anti-crypto" faction designed the Leahy bill to be as anti-crypto as they 
felt they could pass, including just enough bait to get us to take the hook. 
 Obviously, that tactic failed.  However, if I'm right we'll seem some life 
in the carcass yet.

Obviously, this is a highly longshot prediction.  "Nobody" is supposed to be 
for the Leahy bill now.  But I'm reminded of the last 20 minutes of the 
movie, "Terminator"...



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com