From: "I=(!isnum(self))" <geeman@best.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 05:12:46 +0800
To: David Kennedy <76702.3557@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Hoax: A ban on cryptography?
In-Reply-To: <960813023753_76702.3557_CHN38-4@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <3210A92B.4C45@best.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The "hoax" is a dramatization of possible legislation based on the 
language used in Di Fi's anti-bomb-making-rhetoric legislation proposed 
and passed in the Senate.

I posted that bill, and asked the list if anyone knew the status.  Tim 
May responded with the dramatized crypto version and asked "What is the 
status of _this_ bill" [emphasis added] .... and if I interpret 
correctly, the intent was

1. to chide
2. to dramatize

What if that WERE a bill being proposed??




David Kennedy wrote:
> 
> My mailer thinks the e$pam list pulled this from cypherpunks:
> 
> >>                                             S.1666
> 
>  Department of Commerce Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Passed by the
>  Senate) <<
> 
> And this is bogus, and as far as I can tell not a typo, it's complete hokum.
> 
> S.1666 is an obscure bill about courts in Utah.
> 
> A search of http://thomas.loc.gov on "encryption" reveals the expected bills,
> PRO-CODE etc.
> 
> A search for the DoC Authorization Act reveals nothing, as far as I can tell
> this bill has not been drafted let alone passed. I don't know enough about how
> the DoC is funded to know if they get their own Authorization Act or receive
> authorizations piecemeal and by the reconciliation.
> 
> Again, this is bogus.
> 
> !^NavFont02F02350014QGHHG|MG~HG85QG87HI}2126