More on House Intelligence committee amendment on crypto

So I'm reading through the 43-page amendment to SAFE that the House
Intelligence committee approved today. It includes: 

* Ban on sale of crypto without a backdoor. Five year & fine (maybe
$250,000?) if violated. Prosecutions can be held in closed-door
courtrooms, publishers of info about case to be held in contempt of court.

* Federal government computer purchases must use key escrow "immediate
decryption" after 1998. Same with network established w/Federal funds.

* Such products can be labeled "authorized for sale to U.S. government"

* U.S. government may "not mandate the use of encryption standards" for
the private sector

* Export decisions aren't subject to judicial review

* Defense & Commerce have controls of exports of crypto

* Establishes Encryption Industry and Information Security Board

* Internet providers, key recovery centers aren't liable if they turn over
keys following legal standards

* President can negotiate int'l agreements, perhaps punish noncompliant
governments

I'm still reading... More details shortly...

-Declan

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> So I'm reading through the 43-page amendment to SAFE that the House
> Intelligence committee approved today. It includes:
> 
> * Ban on sale of crypto without a backdoor. Five year & fine (maybe
> $250,000?) if violated. Prosecutions can be held in closed-door
> courtrooms, publishers of info about case to be held in contempt of court.

How about a ban on sale of Congressional votes without using vaseline
on the citizen's backdoor?

World's Greatest Search Engine?
  It's the one that finds the names of the Justice Department officials
who went to jail for contempt of court when they defied Congress during
the INSLAW hearings.

TruthMonger

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

In <Pine.GSO.3.95.970911152027.12105Z-100000@well.com>, on 09/11/97 
   at 03:38 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> said:

>So I'm reading through the 43-page amendment to SAFE that the House
>Intelligence committee approved today. It includes: 

>* Ban on sale of crypto without a backdoor. Five year & fine (maybe
>$250,000?) if violated. Prosecutions can be held in closed-door
>courtrooms, publishers of info about case to be held in contempt of
>court.

>* Federal government computer purchases must use key escrow "immediate
>decryption" after 1998. Same with network established w/Federal funds.

>* Such products can be labeled "authorized for sale to U.S. government"

>* U.S. government may "not mandate the use of encryption standards" for
>the private sector

>* Export decisions aren't subject to judicial review

>* Defense & Commerce have controls of exports of crypto

>* Establishes Encryption Industry and Information Security Board

>* Internet providers, key recovery centers aren't liable if they turn
>over keys following legal standards

>* President can negotiate int'l agreements, perhaps punish noncompliant
>governments

>I'm still reading... More details shortly...

>-Declan

Declan,

Is there any way you can get me a copy of the amendment? My congressman is
on that committie and I intend to raise a stink down here on this.

Copies of the transcripts from the meeting and voting recored would be
helpfull.

I understand that 1 congresscritter voted against the amendment, do you
know which one it was? I would like to make sure it wasn't Joe
Scarborough.

Thanks,

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNBibN49Co1n+aLhhAQHjIAQAt8zHf0pXV0ADED/nsurOOu78TOC9WyVh
hiK+Ido+h2gbyI/IM+kYjqFX1Mmnw33u2HcPQgBWY1wOaZDHbE1s7bumkD2hkKAM
Cu8kH4BC2G4yi5pR7S9d+4QwmnHNA+S5ptPdMtV0MwEgTy5c0Ht/Kya5qJZrZikp
hZdGgNhdVv0=
=3nSZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

William,

There was a vote in Nat Sec earlier this week. That was fortyfive-one, I
recall, to gut SAFE. I think Smith voted against it. Today's vote was in
the supersecret Intelligence committee, which met behind closed doors this
morning and approved the domestic restrictions.

-Declan


> Is there any way you can get me a copy of the amendment? My congressman is
> on that committie and I intend to raise a stink down here on this.
> 
> Copies of the transcripts from the meeting and voting recored would be
> helpfull.
> 
> I understand that 1 congresscritter voted against the amendment, do you
> know which one it was? I would like to make sure it wasn't Joe
> Scarborough.

At 7:23 am -0400 on 9/12/97, Will Rodger wrote:


> "Twas none other than Adam Smith - Rep. from Microsoft's own Puget
> sound. I saw his hand.

Ohhhh.

I can see it now, 5 years hence:

"Bill Gates was indicted for treason today by special order of President
Gore. His vast ill-gotten fortune has been impounded under the RICO laws."

Call me paranoid. Call me anything you want. Just don't call me late for
supper. ;-).

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

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


>> I understand that 1 congresscritter voted against the amendment, 
do you
>> know which one it was? I would like to make sure it wasn't Joe
>> Scarborough.

"Twas none other than Adam Smith - Rep. from Microsoft's own Puget 
sound. I saw his hand.

Will Rodger
Washington Bureau Chief
Inter@ctive Week

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

iQA/AwUBNBkmGtZgKT/Hvj9iEQL3ggCgwAzUMsqPgbt/0X4ux0LW1onPNIEAnjcR
vSCY8TUImbNIt1eEyf1RrXWQ
=Z8em
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:38:30 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>So I'm reading through the 43-page amendment to SAFE that the House
>Intelligence committee approved today. It includes: 
>
>* Ban on sale of crypto without a backdoor. Five year & fine (maybe
>$250,000?) if violated. Prosecutions can be held in closed-door
>courtrooms, publishers of info about case to be held in contempt of court.
>
>* Federal government computer purchases must use key escrow "immediate
>decryption" after 1998. Same with network established w/Federal funds.
>
>* Such products can be labeled "authorized for sale to U.S. government"
>
>* U.S. government may "not mandate the use of encryption standards" for
>the private sector
>
>* Export decisions aren't subject to judicial review
>
>* Defense & Commerce have controls of exports of crypto
>
>* Establishes Encryption Industry and Information Security Board
>
>* Internet providers, key recovery centers aren't liable if they turn over
>keys following legal standards
>
>* President can negotiate int'l agreements, perhaps punish noncompliant
>governments
>
>I'm still reading... More details shortly...
>
>-Declan
>

How can a law, or how it is applied be exempt from judicial review?
If I understand the first amendment correctly, this is not legal.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Article III, section 2 of the Constitution states:

1. ***The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and
treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority***; to all
cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to
all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies
to which the United States shall be a party; [to controversies between
two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state,
between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same
state, claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a
state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or
subjects.]

The 11th Amendment didn't change the part between the *'s.

If this is correct, any law that Congress would make that prevented me
from seeking judicial review would be unconstitutional.

-Doug


-------------------
Douglas L. Peterson
mailto:fnorky@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/1271/

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

In <3422b46b.109964168@mail.geocities.com>, on 09/15/97 
   at 04:37 AM, fnorky@geocities.com (Douglas L. Peterson) said:

>If this is correct, any law that Congress would make that prevented me
>from seeking judicial review would be unconstitutional.

The Constitution was repealed by the Communist Franklin "Dictator for
Life" Roosevelt. The general public was never notified due to "national
security".

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNB1Xs49Co1n+aLhhAQGDyQQAk6XuzKSAaTZWXeXG/MFLy0RhepyZYpg1
eFPOrDFtu3R0hCs2T1/g19rtoffRLhaVXgsBPYdzQhwomtJeEJnQW5s84bU6RScN
aXzHR2Lm4S5CNq67Klt4oMInNt/bM8KHaILKNRuTzzn4uGg9XSHRVBo4SCpnYTMX
SB/U5Xhb1wY=
=ssCq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----