Re: Fireworks expected, missed at Senate crypto hearing

At 09:19 PM 7/25/96 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:

>Just more of the same, though we heard less about child pornographers and
>more about terrorists. And Sen. Slate Gorton (R-Wash) jumped on the
>committee staff for leaning too far *away* from national security interests
>in their summary of the legislation.

What does that mean?  As opposed to what?  (Gorton's my Senator, and I'm 
going to give a little feedback to his local office...)



>The FBI's Louis Freeh kept mouthing the same tired old line: "No reasonable
>person can envision a lawless information superhighway."

I guess that makes me an unreasonable person!


> "It was never meant to be that." 

Well, that's just the problem...for _him_!  Sometimes actions lead to 
hard-to-predict outcomes.


>We need cops there, as we need them elsewhere. The problem is
>the proliferation of unbreakable encryption." He said it's "not too late"
>to stop the spread.

Wishful thinking!  Not only is it too late now, it was too late with Clipper 
I was proposed.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> wrote:

   >The FBI's Louis Freeh kept mouthing the same tired old line: "No
   >reasonable person can envision a lawless information superhighway."

   I guess that makes me an unreasonable person!

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.  Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man."

-- 
Paul Foley <mycroft@actrix.gen.nz>       ---         PGPmail preferred

	   PGP key ID 0x1CA3386D available from keyservers
    fingerprint = 4A 76 83 D8 99 BC ED 33  C5 02 81 C9 BF 7A 91 E8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife in the shoulder blades will
seriously cramp his style.

On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, jim bell wrote:

> >Just more of the same, though we heard less about child pornographers and
> >more about terrorists. And Sen. Slate Gorton (R-Wash) jumped on the
> >committee staff for leaning too far *away* from national security interests
> >in their summary of the legislation.
> 
> What does that mean?  As opposed to what?  (Gorton's my Senator, and I'm 
> going to give a little feedback to his local office...)

He criticized the committee staff for not preparing a balanced summary. 
Harsh words, from a Repub.

If his comments yesterday are indicia, he won't vote for Pro-CODE. 

-Declan