From: geeman <NOSPAM-geeman@best.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 23:58:13 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Made a Mistake! Re: unSAFE
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19691231160000.006c0aa0@best.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I wrote
---
comment, though, on this caveat in the paragraphs you indicate:

   "(2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES. ...
(but only to the extent that the authority of such Act is not exercised to
extend controls imposed
    under this Act) .... "

Seems to me that it says "the administration can still control xyz under
the EAA, TWE, EEP, etc but not if such control extends the controls defined
under HR695 SAFE"

Looks like language to assuage the powers that be, while it creates
AMBIGUITY and the need for interpretation (AKA court intervention) when
some administration tries to overstep it's bounds.  I don't think that's
necessarily bad, since legislation has never existed that is ironclad 
anyway: it's always subject to some runaway Attorney General getting weird,
as we have seen plenty of times.

<usual caveats go here> 
---

but THEN noticed the paragraph is attached to the EAA, not SAFE.
Never mind.
SAFE looks more ominous ....