[1455] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no bill
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Declan McCullagh)
Wed Sep 10 11:04:49 1997
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 02:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock@well.com>
cc: "fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu" <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>,
cypherpunks@toad.com, cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9709092238.A11760-0100000@well.com>
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
that
> 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.
-Declan
