Re: unSAFE won't pass?

Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>:

>By late September, the Commerce committee will vote on SAFE. By
>mid-October, the committee chairs should have worked out a compromise
>package. This goes to the Rules committee, chaired by Solomon. Until 
last
>week he vowed to block SAFE. Now he'd like, I'm told, to get the FBI's
>version to the floor immediately. There are, however, only so many 
slots
>on the suspension calendar.

The thing I still don't understand is why anyone thinks the house
will support the new bill.  There were hundreds of co-sponsors for
SAFE in its original form.  The modified version is exactly the
opposite of the original SAFE.  So it seems like a majority of house
members should oppose the bill.

"John

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

John,

You don't understand the dynamic. At the NatSec hearing last week, there
were two dozen cosponsors on the committee. But all but one voted to gut
the bill. Many others said they were hoodwinked into signing on.

The tide is changing.

-Declan



On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, John Smith wrote:

> Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>:
> 
> >By late September, the Commerce committee will vote on SAFE. By
> >mid-October, the committee chairs should have worked out a compromise
> >package. This goes to the Rules committee, chaired by Solomon. Until 
> last
> >week he vowed to block SAFE. Now he'd like, I'm told, to get the FBI's
> >version to the floor immediately. There are, however, only so many 
> slots
> >on the suspension calendar.
> 
> The thing I still don't understand is why anyone thinks the house
> will support the new bill.  There were hundreds of co-sponsors for
> SAFE in its original form.  The modified version is exactly the
> opposite of the original SAFE.  So it seems like a majority of house
> members should oppose the bill.
> 
> "John
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> 
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 12:28 PM 9/15/97 +0000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>John,
>
>You don't understand the dynamic. At the NatSec hearing last week, 
there
>were two dozen cosponsors on the committee. But all but one voted to 
gut
>the bill. Many others said they were hoodwinked into signing on.
>
>The tide is changing.


Jeez, I'm not trying to be contrary John or Declan, but here's my 
view:

The chance that more than a few hyper-busy members of Congress 
actually understand this way-arcane issue is nearing zero. Let's face 
it; many if not most members don't even use a PC. Based on what I've 
heard in hearings and from staffers, my seat-of-the-pants guess is - 
oh - let's say 30 of the 535 members in House and Senate really get 
this.

The rest are doing the best they can with limited information, most 
of the time responding to the last person they heard. Thus, 18 0f 22 
co-sponsors of SAFE went the other way after hearing from the FBI.

It's not so much that people are _changing_ their minds, it's that 
they still don't know enough to make an informed decision. Until the 
last few weeks, crypto never occupied the attention of more than a 
handful of the dozens of committees on the Hill.

Unlike most issues, crypto _is_ rocket science to these folks - as it 
is to just about the entire world.




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNB1UMNZgKT/Hvj9iEQInyQCfUeKWIsTrQX6O94abbhmnyM6BKD4AnRGR
Tj0bmclmRMAAwGvM+t/akiZ/
=oZrk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Will Rodger	                                 Dont' want it printed?
Cyberjournalist                                    Don't let it happen.
Optimist                                        Alles vergangliche ist 
Skeptic                                              nur ein Gleichnis.