1997-09-10 - Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no bill

Header Data

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: “Brock N. Meeks” <brock@well.com>
Message Hash: d50634aee9f53c582260b7cb9f65810711ecbe61ff058fac9a69690a6a65fd7d
Message ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970910021607.9178B-100000@well.com>
Reply To: <Pine.3.89.9709092238.A11760-0100000@well.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-09-10 09:32:19 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:32:19 +0800

Raw message

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:32:19 +0800
To: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock@well.com>
Subject: Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no bill
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9709092238.A11760-0100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970910021607.9178B-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Brock N. Meeks wrote:

> Gore didn't say shit.  Sorry but there is no polite way to say this.  
> Gore's remarks at the SPA speech were a great example of "state speak" 
> which the State Dept. has perfected, saying much and in "code" through 
> the use of phrasing and even tone.

Let's look at what Gore did say:

>    WASHINGTON, Sept 9 (Reuter) - With the FBI floating a proposal to
>regulate the domestic use of computer encoding technology, Vice President
>Al Gore asserted Tuesday the administration had not changed its policy 
> allows free use within the United States.
>   "The administration's decision has not changed on encryption, but this
>is an area where we need to find ways to work together to balance the
>legitimate needs of law enforcement with the needs of the marketplace,"
>Gore told a meeting of the Software Publishers Association in Washington.

I agree it's word games, but that's hardly a surprise. Especially since
Gore's denial seems a bit too narrow. What about the administration's
policy on free //distribution// of encryption? That's what Louis Freeh
wants to ban, as an initial move.