From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 04:05:51 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Today's meeting
In-Reply-To: <v0310280bb041c593da9f@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970914125004.18715G-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Tim May wrote:

> Pro-CODE is essentially dead, of course, replaced by the McCain-Kerr(e)y
> text, and not moving much. SAFE is in a state of confusion. The worst
> language, the stuff we've been talking about so angrily, is not from the
> committees that actually have primary control. She doubts their's enough
> time for this language to clear the Rules Committee and make it in
> NatSec-Intelligence draconian form to the floor, let alone pass, let alone
> reach the Senate floor. She expects Congress to adjourn for the year in
> late October or early November, and their just isn't time.

I agree with just about all of this. I do, however, think there's just
enough time for the NatSec/FBI version of SAFE to move to the floor. It
depends on how much effort the NSA/FBI want to expend. I wrote more about
this just now in the "Re: unSAFE won't pass?" thread.

> * Their strategy is "next year." Some opposition is building. She says Sen.
> Trent Lott is strongly opposed to the unFreeh form. A coalition called
> "Americans for a Secure Tomorrow" (Madison Avenue wins again) is active.
> URL not immediately obvious as of yesterday (to all of those in the room
> with Ricochet modems, which was about half the room!).

True, Lott would seem to be opposed to the FBI's language. (At least he
was opposed to McCain-Kerrey's bill, which didn't go nearly as far.) As
for the coalition, the hope would seem to be in running print ads in
members' own home districts. Make them sweat.

-Declan