[849] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House J
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Allen Simpson)
Thu May 15 22:14:50 1997
Date: Fri, 16 May 97 01:22:32 GMT
From: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
To: cryptography@c2.net
Rather than all this rampant speculation, I actually talked to the Dem
staffer, John Flannery. He's an engineer by training, and only then a
lawyer. He has also been a prosecutor (heavy sigh). But he does
understand the issues from several perspectives.
I like this language a lot better. As you remember, the previous
language was "a criminal offense for which the person may be prosecuted
in a court of competent jurisdiction".
Note that didn't require _actual_ prosecution, and certainly not
conviction. It wasn't limited to federal crimes. The previous language
allowed prosecution when they "thought" you were concealing a crime,
even a traffic violation, that they could not "discover" because you were
using cryptography. Remember Steve Jackson Games?
This is one issue where the deal-making came down in the general
direction that we want. It's hard to see how we could have done better,
except total elimination. We could have done _much_ worse.
So, rather than a "purist" attitude, let's get out there and help this
move along. It will all be ultimately decided in conference committee
between the House and Senate, anyway. That's where we need to get this,
first.
And I have nothing but praise for the coalition that was working on this
behind the scenes. Good job!
WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson@MorningStar.com
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
