From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:07:23 +0800
To: Scott Carr <scarr@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Subject: Re: The White "Compromise"
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970924100704.009ec950@mailbox.bgsu.edu>
Message-ID: <v03007800b04ee3d95517@[204.254.21.50]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



The White Compromise is what I wrote about in my Netly piece last Wed? and
my post of last night called "Congress & Crypto Roundup: Vote in Commerce
cmte tomorrow."

>From memory: The "compromise" would remove some export restrictions on
crypto, provided that the program was readily available overseas already.
It would not remove all export restrictions. (This is in the original SAFE
bill, which it amends.)

It also includes those four points I wrote about, including giving the FBI
tons of $$$ to buy them off. More disturbingly, it doubles the
crypto-in-a-crime penalties.

The crypto coalition letter sent around last week was right on this point:
representatives should oppose //all// amendments to SAFE, including the
White so-called "compromise."

-Declan



At 10:07 -0400 9/24/97, Scott Carr wrote:
>   I spoke to a staffer of Rep. Strictland's office (a rural Ohio
>district, I voted for the other guy last year, sigh...) and she did
>not know the Congressman's position on SAFE five and a half hours
>before the markup.  Reading between the lines, he seems to be heading
>for the White "Compromise".
>
>   Now a question, does the White amendment remove export limitations
>on crypto?  Strictland's legislative director stated that was her
>understanding.  I thought it left the status quo in that regard.
>
>   (I am hearing that damned word "COMPROMISE" too many times talking
>to these jokers for my comfort.  The only compromise I see is the
>compromising of my data and security.)