Re: Sen. Specter and Kerry move to delay crypto legislation

At 06:19 PM 6/21/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, jim bell wrote:

>> >> Since "everybody" is supposed to agree that the Leahy encryption bill is 
>> >> dead, dead, dead, I don't see this as being any kind of problem.  It was 
>> >> disliked by Clinton and the Denning-types, and with the exception of a short 
>> >> flurry of mistaken optimism around here, it was roundly excoriated here as 
>> >> well.  
>> >
>> >To which which Leahy Bill are you referring?
>> 
>> The one introduced on February 26, 1996.
>
>I think the above message was refering to "procode" however.


Certainly not by name.  It merely referred to legislation that Leahy "sponsored." 
 Leahy _did_ seem to act like he was in favor of the Burns bill, as well,  
after ECPA got the bad press, and maybe he's a co-sponsor of the Procode 
bill as well.  Even so, the letter did not appear to be CC:'d to Burns, so I 
conclude that it was intended to refer to at least the ECPA, if not both bills.  



                          United States Senate
                     Select Committee on Intelligence
 
                             June 7, 1996
                                                   SSCI #96-2219B
 
 The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
 United States Senator
 Senate Russell Building, Room 433
 Washington, D.C. 20510-4502
 
 Dear Pat:
 
      We write to express our concerns about legislation you have sponsored
 which would impact directly upon federal encryption policy, including export
 control policy.  Recognizing that American innovation in encryption
 technology is unequaled, we appreciate the need to balance US economic
 competitiveness with the need to safeguard national security interests.  As
 such, it is our belief that this legislation requires careful study and
 reflection and that the Senate and the Congress as a whole should proceed
 with caution until all of the implications of such an initiative are fully
 discerned.  Along these lines, it is our understanding that industry
 representatives are currently meeting with the Administration to discuss new
 policy initiatives to address this issue.  Also, both the Congress and the
 Administration have undertaken to conduct a thorough analysis of a two-year
 congressionally-mandated study on federal encryption policy that was
 facilitated by the National Research Council.  We therefore feel that your
 legislation initiative at this time is premature.
 
      We appreciate your efforts to bring some needed clarity to United
 States policy in this area and wish to keep the lines open for discussion
 and debate on this important issue.  The staff point of contact on this
 issue is our Committee Counsel, Mark Heilbrun, who can be reached at
 224-1700.
                                 Sincerely,
 Arlen Specter                                   J. Robert Kerrey
 Chairman                                        Vice-Chairman
 
 cc:  The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato
      Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 06:19 PM 6/21/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, jim bell wrote:
> 
> >> >> Since "everybody" is supposed to agree that the Leahy encryption bill is 

> >> >To which which Leahy Bill are you referring?
> >> 
> >> The one introduced on February 26, 1996.
> >
> >I think the above message was refering to "procode" however.

> Certainly not by name.  It merely referred to legislation that Leahy "sponsored." 
>  Leahy _did_ seem to act like he was in favor of the Burns bill, as well,  
> after ECPA got the bad press, and maybe he's a co-sponsor of the Procode 
> bill as well.  Even so, the letter did not appear to be CC:'d to Burns, so I 
> conclude that it was intended to refer to at least the ECPA, if not both bills.  

Specter wrote to Leahy because the two of them get along well.  (Recall
the Clipper hearings for example) and because Specter and Burns do not.

It may also explain things to realize that Leahy wrote the circular asking
for other Senators to support the bill.  Specter is probably responding to
that.

Leahy's office has been the point unit for crypto initatives because their
legal staff are the only ones who really understand what is going on or
are able to answer questions intelligently.

Be careful with your assumptions and take replies to e-mail please.

> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
> 

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com