Senate Bill 974?

Haven't seen it discussed here, but the August 28, 1995 issue of Lan
Times covers Sen. Charles Grassley's (R-IOWA) Senate Bill 974.
Frankly, you should probably read the text of the bill itself,
because the article doesn't seem to get the facts straight.

The article asserts first that the bill may outlaw any non-GAK
encryption, but then quotes the senator as saying ``All my
bill does is say you can't use computers to steal, to threaten
others or conceal criminal conduct.''  Perhaps concealing
criminal conduct is considered using non-GAK.  The quote from
the bill itself reads like the ITAR; it is illegal to ``distribute
computer software that encodes or ecrypts electronic or digital
communications to computer networks that the person knows, or 
reasonably should know, is accessible to foreign nationals and
foreign governments, regardless of whether such software has been
designated as nonexportable."


The article also says that up to 64 bit keys may now be allowed
in exportable software, but that ``some experts'' suggest
that those keys may have to be GAK.  I've never heard anything
BUT the keys would have to GAK.


David Neal <dneal@usis.com> - GNU Planet Aerospace 1-800-PLN-8-GNU
Unix, Sybase and Networking consultant. "...you have a personal responsibility 
to be pro-active in the defense of your own civil liberties." - S. McCandlish

David Neal writes:
> Haven't seen it discussed here, but the August 28, 1995 issue of Lan
> Times covers Sen. Charles Grassley's (R-IOWA) Senate Bill 974.

Actually, we considered S.974 (the Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995)
here in excruciating detail a couple of months ago. Check the archives from
e.g. July.

At last report, the bill had been referred to committee. If/when it ever
emerges from subcommittee, there's cause for concern. No mention of it has
been made in the Congressional Record since Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona joined
as a cosponsor in late July. It doesn't currently appear on the unofficial
list of "hot bills" on Thomas -- "bills that have received or are receiving 
floor action and/or debate in the United States Congress" 
(http://thomas.loc.gov/home/hot-bill.html)  Hopefully it has died in
committee, as more pressing matters have taken precedence.

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>