From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
To: jamesd@echeque.com
Message Hash: cd429a83d722def50fe496b527b7c32ad976e686dd7d8954a3181293f6585428
Message ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970514011229.3391B-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
Reply To: <199705140419.VAA01203@proxy3.ba.best.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-14 05:49:33 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 13:49:33 +0800
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 13:49:33 +0800
To: jamesd@echeque.com
Subject: Re: unsafe SAFE:
In-Reply-To: <199705140419.VAA01203@proxy3.ba.best.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970514011229.3391B-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I believe Courtney got it wrong. Isn't it Pro-CODE that has the Info Board
provision? See:
SEC. 6. INFORMATION SECURITY BOARD.
(a) INFORMATION SECURITY BOARD TO BE ESTABLISHED- The Secretary shall
establish an Information Security Board comprised of
representatives of agencies within the Federal Government
responsible for or involved in the formulation of information
security policy, including export controls on products with
information security features (including encryption). The Board
shall meet at such times and in such places as the Secretary may
prescribe, but not less frequently than quarterly. The Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to the Board
or to meetings held by the Board under subsection (d).
-Declan
On Tue, 13 May 1997 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
> according to http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10604,00.html
>
> Kerrey's effort has one thing in common with the
> SAFE Act: It calls for the creation of an Information
> Security Board. The board proposal caused some
> privacy watchdogs to pull their endorsements of
> SAFE because it wouldn't have to comply with
> federal open-meeting act.
>
>
> Since a common hand has presumably been at work in both bills,
> this looks like good cop / bad cop to me.
>
> The good cop says, "I am your friend"
>
> He is not your friend.
>
> Create a federal board, and it will exercise power.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> |
> We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
> and our property, because of the kind |
> of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald
> derives from this right, not from the |
> arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd@echeque.com
>
>
Return to May 1997
Return to ““William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@amaranth.com>”