From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:25:12 +0800
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
Subject: Re: Oxley Amendment
In-Reply-To: <01BCC93A.D0869BA0@dasc12-105.flash.net>
Message-ID: <v03007803b0503363e7a0@[204.254.21.85]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Lucky has it right. SAFE is extremely unlikely to go to the floor without
additional "compromise."

Then there's the "compromise" with whatever bill the Senate coughs up.
Remember that pro-crypto legislation is dead there; only McCain-Kerrey got
out of committee. Also remember the Senate is more conservative...

Then there's the reality that no pro-crypto legislation would get past a
presidential veto...

-Declan


At 07:16 -0700 9/25/97, Lucky Green wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Michael Brock wrote:
>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I wonder if Mr. Solomon of NY will rethink his decision to not bring
>> up SAFE without Oxley to the entire House after the unprecedented
>> coaltion of companies and individual groups that came together to
>> make sure that mandatory key recovery stays a "1984" like dream.   I
>> find it incomprehensible that one man, would block the introduction
>> of this bill, after it being proved that this is what his
>> constituents want....
>
>What in the world makes you believe that Mr. Solomon's constituents would
>want SAFE to go the the floor? SAFE *must* be defeated, with or without
>the Oxley ammendment.
>
>-- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred.
>   "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"