From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr@together.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 22:43:39 +0800
To: "John Young" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: New GAK Bill
Message-ID: <199709061414.KAA14770@mx02.together.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 9/6/97 9:08 AM, John Young (jya@pipeline.com)  passed this wisdom:

>For a legal analysis of why mandatory domestic key escrow would 
>not (most likely) be constitutional for non-commercial messages, 
>see parts III & IV of:

  What I would like to know is how they can justify imposing it on
messages between individuals and corporations or corporations to
corporations. It also occurs to me that if such communications were
within state boundries might not that further restrict where they can
put their nose? In they end they most likely will do as they please,
but usually they try to start with some semblance of legal
constitutional foundation ... this time they seem to have gone for the
throat in the first inning, the Constitution be damned ...

  I see, despite the wording of the McCain-Kerry, that after they have
that in place, they will then coming whining that because the private
sector is excluded that all these bad people are doing an endrun, so
we need to bring them in under the umbrella of GAK ... <sigh> ... 'up
the revolution!'


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNBFk/sdZgC62U/gIEQJfcACg98yLedoN7B7i91MFuhBj1TkBF5EAoNCX
39s/Pt+a4/krfyIQ3yB6YJnM
=yiu0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr
       For PGP Keys -  Send Email Subject "Get PGP Key"
 "It would take an archimedean fulcrum to raise you to the level of
  total depravity" --Thomas E. Carney, ca. 1920