Re: Oxley Amendment

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

I wonder if Mr. Solomon of NY will rethink his decision to not bring 
up SAFE without Oxley to the entire House after the unprecedented 
coaltion of companies and individual groups that came together to 
make sure that mandatory key recovery stays a "1984" like dream.   I 
find it incomprehensible that one man, would block the introduction 
of this bill, after it being proved that this is what his 
constituents want....


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

iQA/AwUBNCndC6kD4Ab4OebpEQJYvQCg1YyRAp1npa4euRQdhh/CKjjbY8MAnRr2
cAljqiyA7E8TNF5wvdKwVBXz
=bsvt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Lucky has it right. SAFE is extremely unlikely to go to the floor without
additional "compromise."

Then there's the "compromise" with whatever bill the Senate coughs up.
Remember that pro-crypto legislation is dead there; only McCain-Kerrey got
out of committee. Also remember the Senate is more conservative...

Then there's the reality that no pro-crypto legislation would get past a
presidential veto...

-Declan


At 07:16 -0700 9/25/97, Lucky Green wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Michael Brock wrote:
>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I wonder if Mr. Solomon of NY will rethink his decision to not bring
>> up SAFE without Oxley to the entire House after the unprecedented
>> coaltion of companies and individual groups that came together to
>> make sure that mandatory key recovery stays a "1984" like dream.   I
>> find it incomprehensible that one man, would block the introduction
>> of this bill, after it being proved that this is what his
>> constituents want....
>
>What in the world makes you believe that Mr. Solomon's constituents would
>want SAFE to go the the floor? SAFE *must* be defeated, with or without
>the Oxley ammendment.
>
>-- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred.
>   "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"

On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Michael Brock wrote:

> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> I wonder if Mr. Solomon of NY will rethink his decision to not bring 
> up SAFE without Oxley to the entire House after the unprecedented 
> coaltion of companies and individual groups that came together to 
> make sure that mandatory key recovery stays a "1984" like dream.   I 
> find it incomprehensible that one man, would block the introduction 
> of this bill, after it being proved that this is what his 
> constituents want....

What in the world makes you believe that Mr. Solomon's constituents would
want SAFE to go the the floor? SAFE *must* be defeated, with or without
the Oxley ammendment.

-- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred.
   "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"

At 11:29 AM 09/25/1997 -0400, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> wrote:
>Lucky has it right. SAFE is extremely unlikely to go to the floor without
>additional "compromise."

I thought the compromise wording was fairly well-defined
	Congress shall make Only A Few laws abridging freedom of speech,
	or of the press, or....


				Thanks!
					Bill
Bill Stewart, stewarts@ix.netcom.com
Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639