From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:36:29 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Oxley crypto update: vote in 90 minutes
In-Reply-To: <v03007804b04f0505fb1e@[168.161.105.141]>
Message-ID: <v03102806b04f08f8521a@[207.226.3.4]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



A little more news:

I've been told that the Bell companies have issued a statement saying that
they remain opposed to Oxley II despite Oxley's attempts to bring them on
board.  This is good news -- the bell companies hold a lot of sway on the
Commerce Committee and their opposition is politically valuable to us.

I'd be surprised if the version of Oxley II posted on our site is
inaccurate (it's dated 12:14 pm yesterday), but it is possible that there
is an Oxley III floating around somewhere.   Perhaps they are just trying
to throw you off the scent.

Solomon's statement that only SAFE w/Oxley will go to the floor is also
good news -- it means that chances of anything passing this session are
that much lower.

More as it comes,

Jonah (rooting for gridlock)


At 2:02 PM -0400 9/24/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Today's vote will be held in less than two hours. Keep in mind that this is
>just one committee out of five that's considering the SAFE bill. The impact
>of the committee's draft of SAFE is not nearly as important, IMHO, as the
>political impact of the vote. Can one of the nation's richest industries
>muster up the votes to defeat law enforcement -- in the //Commerce//
>committee, of all places? Many eyes will be watching the committee today.
>
>I hear that Oxley is nervous and has been calling people he never did
>before. His staff tells me that yes, he has been calling everyone on the
>committee. He'll be distributing letters of support from groups --
>including law enforcement groups in California -- that will buttress his
>amendment. Oxley's staff tells me the version of Oxley II posted by CDT is
>almost certainly inaccurate and out of date. Solomon, chair of House Rules,
>is circulating a letter saying only SAFE with Oxley will go to the floor.
>
>The pressure's on. Rumors are flying that industry may cut a deal (perhaps
>brokered by White) that may give up civil liberties in exchange for export
>controls. We'll see soon. As of yesterday Oxley appeared to have a majority
>of perhaps 32-34 out of the 51 or so people on the committee.
>
>-Declan
>
>
>>In case anybody is counting votes, my own congressman (Brian Bilbray, R-CA)
>>sits on the House Commerce committee. I just got a call back from his
>>staff saying that Bilbray opposes the Oxley amendment and continues
>>to support the original SAFE bill, which he co-sponsored.
>>
>>Any other word on how today's vote is going?
>>
>>Phil



* Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't.  Say 'No' to Key Escrow! *
            Adopt Your Legislator -  http://www.crypto.com/adopt

--
Jonah Seiger, Communications Director              (v) +1.202.637.9800
Center for Democracy and Technology              pager +1.202.859.2151
<jseiger@cdt.org>
                                                    PGP Key via finger
http://www.cdt.org
http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger