Crypto Export Legislation?

The excerpt below is from the Wash Post article today. Does 
anyone know the status of the Leahy/Goodlatte bills?


BTW, it's been suggested that this article is sufficiently on 
topic to post to the list in its entirety. Anyone else whose 
seen it agree?


----------


   The Washington Post, February 25, 1996, pp. H1, H4.


   Scrambling for a Policy on Encryption Exports

   [Long snip]


   Industry also is fanning Congress's interest in taking a
   bigger role in the encryption debate. "Without
   congressional interest, the administration has no reason to
   liberalize exports at all," said Becca Gould, director of
   policy at the Business Software Alliance. "This issue is in
   Congress's front yard because it affects the economy" as
   well as U.S. citizens' privacy rights.

   Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte
   (R-Va.) agree. They plan to introduce bills in the Senate
   and House aimed at loosening the restrictions on
   encryption. "The federal government is taking an attitude
   that's based more in the 1970s than in present time," said
   Leahy in a telephone interview.

   "This is a matter that should be decided by legislation,"
   he added. "We're talking about billions of dollars in
   revenues and thousands of jobs if we're handicapped in our
   global market, especiaUy if what we're told to do is to
   build an export encryption program that is so outdated that
   our 12-year-old computer experts wouJd laugh at it."

   The bills would do away with export licenses for any
   encryption technology considered to be "generally
   available," or "in the public domain." Leahy said that
   although he, too, worries about national security and
   terrorism, trying to bottle up technology won't solve the
   problem.

   Law enforcement has "got to figure out how to keep ahead
   ... and surprise, surprise, there will be some times when
   we won't be able to eavesdrop," Leahy said. Even now,
   criminals can make calls at pay telephones or avoid
   detection in other ways. The government shouldn't cripple
   the computer industry every time a new technology springs
   up that challenges law enforcement, he said.

   "What I'm suggesting is that if [the administration] works
   with the Congress, we'll find a solution," Leahy said.

   ...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


    jya> From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> Subject: Crypto Export
    jya> Legislation?

    jya> The excerpt below is from the Wash Post article today. Does
    jya> anyone know the status of the Leahy/Goodlatte bills?

    jya>    Industry also is fanning Congress's interest in taking a
    jya> bigger role in the encryption debate. "Without congressional
    jya> interest, the administration has no reason to liberalize
    jya> exports at all," said Becca Gould, director of policy at the
    jya> Business Software Alliance. "This issue is in Congress's
    jya> front yard because it affects the economy" as well as
    jya> U.S. citizens' privacy rights.

    jya>    Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte
    jya> (R-Va.) agree. They plan to introduce bills in the Senate and
    jya> House aimed at loosening the restrictions on encryption. "The
    jya> federal government is taking an attitude that's based more in
    jya> the 1970s than in present time," said Leahy in a telephone
    jya> interview.

I haven't seen Goodlatte's legislation, but I can safely say he
doesn't have our privacy rights at heart. Bob Goodlatte (my local
representative) was the CC toadie partially responsible for putting
"indecent" back in the CDA. I don't trust him any further than I can
spit on him.

I'll keep an eye on this. I'm very suspicious of his intentions.

- --mark

==> mark@evol.resnet.jmu.edu * http://evol.resnet.jmu.edu/~mark/ <==
**WARNING** : The preceding message may have been indecent under the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Young children, the easily offended,
and members of the Christian Coalition should not have viewed it. :)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMTHUSgJ9CGSE+MitAQEwzgP+PEC7EskS+lSTrultrNgPZkp3cTseLC0Q
pttGP2h+e90NhLVhOrcoLqpPP5BMkYR093FkfnkrhFiLyXe/HgzSeGH4i55yfxvy
TvxvmMZg4P+DQ3JpTxu8Vznt/AeJBudGuGDXzH2IXUOhzvihVJ0CKGXtbn4z/5ra
kjosg/mjAbI=
=68jw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----