From: Jeremiah A Blatz <jer+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 20:29:58 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Subject: Re: OECD: No GAK
In-Reply-To: <199703272150.VAA18676@mailhub.amaranth.com>
Message-ID: <0nCoXN200YUf0Ldoc0@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com> writes:
> In <1.5.4.32.19970327120223.006d3e30@pop.pipeline.com>, on 03/27/97 at
> 07:02 AM,
>    John Young <jya@pipeline.com> said:
> 
> 
> > That seeming contradiction, however, did not prevent the
> >   Clinton Administration in recent months from waging a
> >   vigorous behind-the-scenes effort for its proposal. And
> >   hoping to resolve some of the policy conflicts, the
> >   Administration is now circulating draft legislation on
> >   Capitol Hill which would attempt to control even the
> >   domestic use of data-scrambling software and establish a
> >   key-escrow system for the United States.
> 
> 
> Is this in reference to the various GAK initiatives by the administration
> or are they finally pushing for forced restrictions on domestic crypto? Has
> anyone seen these drafts?

I haven't seen the drafts, but the url that someone recently posted
(the ones with the commas in it) has an article about it. The article
is pretty down on the whole GAK thing, and points out a couple times
that the proposed bill pushes hard for de facto manditory GAK, despite
the gov't's past claims that it wouldn't do that.

Jer

"standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew
 why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQB1AwUBMztItckz/YzIV3P5AQEd1wL/Tr9jF0HoKUwujRpXQY4E0ANH9Lmt2Xzx
OSw2mjyK965r6ul0+OKH6ArKeqNKgV2XgCk2iHC8P4hqx5DFbCVhXMzhNtVrIPl8
509bfqxBSV4nDkitUMb+y6hpA8+RvFGQ
=ulDt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----