Re: INFO: Pro-CODE testimony available now online at democracy.net!

At 02:22 PM 3/24/97 -0500, Shabbir Safdar wrote:

>The hearing was held by the Senate Commerce Committe to consider S. 377,
>the Promotion of Commerce online in the Digital Era (Pro-CODE) Act and this
>issue of US encryption policy -- a critical issue to the Internet user
>community.

I, and maybe a lot of other people, are still waiting for somebody to do a 
side-by-side comparison of "Pro-Code 1997" with last year's version, the 
original.

What has changed?  For the worse?  Why?  Who wanted it changed?  Who changed 
it?  Are they embarrassed?


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

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

At 09:52 PM 3/24/97 -0800, jim bell wrote:
=>I, and maybe a lot of other people, are still waiting for somebody to do a 
>side-by-side comparison of "Pro-Code 1997" with last year's version, the 
>original.

A marked-up version (deleted text shown as strikeout, added text shown as
emphasized, common text shown as normal, will require a browser like Netscape
or IE which implements <strike> and <em>) is available at

<http://www.io.com/~gbroiles/procodemarkup.html>. 

It's not exactly attractive, but it gets the job done. 

Am working on a bigger survey of pending US and foreign crypto legislation,
but that may take a few more days.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5

iQEVAgUBMzotfP37pMWUJFlhAQHaCQf9HjJR+vVVCndFYxnMGhRIwIIrDzlW41W/
okEdFTS34eYvgaK14AHuGi4xGkVBA3z7U+v7WtvOkmrtJCzrh43VjPynE9B5e3c/
+cPi27VS4dJuVyzsYoAQDnkbnK6T/TXjfaZmYwAONuwHbhFzupSgT8x3kAOyUHNP
9YzxdwjTVP6553M1QPqojgOUeSSfz+HMoW0KUi7BZmmLE/dAwQrZ/bXBGq7MZ3sh
eG8RwRAnhTm425qK3aM2k/5SPQoVsroAiN4z9nyAM5pG5piuXfsJ01XsCk++UYes
DGSAWRZkYivBNXMuxP+UIi0KojXjRIWkoaPox1cGQ/qCaUW5frwSJA==
=nZkW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | 
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
                            |

If you want to do a side-by-side comparison, nobody's stopping you. 

The ACLU did one, didn't like what they saw all that much, but decided to
hold their noses and endorse the bill anyway. Check out their press
release from a couple weeks ago. 

-Declan


On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, jim bell wrote:

> At 02:22 PM 3/24/97 -0500, Shabbir Safdar wrote:
> 
> >The hearing was held by the Senate Commerce Committe to consider S. 377,
> >the Promotion of Commerce online in the Digital Era (Pro-CODE) Act and this
> >issue of US encryption policy -- a critical issue to the Internet user
> >community.
> 
> I, and maybe a lot of other people, are still waiting for somebody to do a 
> side-by-side comparison of "Pro-Code 1997" with last year's version, the 
> original.
> 
> What has changed?  For the worse?  Why?  Who wanted it changed?  Who changed 
> it?  Are they embarrassed?
> 
> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
>