Re: House committee ditches SAFE for law enforcement version

1999-08-03 Thread Peter Gutmann
Bill Frantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 12:26 PM -0700 7/26/99, Rick Smith wrote: At 10:48 AM 7/26/99 -0700, Tom Perrine wrote: At that time (1985), every MLS-possible system that had been produced had been cancelled (or died for other reasons) Sure, some of these (ours included) had

Re: House committee ditches SAFE for law enforcement version

1999-08-01 Thread Bill Frantz
At 12:26 PM -0700 7/26/99, Rick Smith wrote: At 10:48 AM 7/26/99 -0700, Tom Perrine wrote: I'll take that I worked on systems to handle highly-classified data in full multi-level environements (A1 candidates). Been there, done that. Got the scars. At least we got Uncle Sam to pay the

Re: House committee ditches SAFE for law enforcement version

1999-07-26 Thread Declan McCullagh
Oh, and there's one other thing: There is no companion bill to SAFE in the Senate. So assuming (this is a big assumption) the Senate approves ProCODE or something, then the differences between the two bills would be hammered out in a conference committee. Needless to say, this would be very

Re: House committee ditches SAFE for law enforcement version

1999-07-26 Thread John A. Limpert
Tim May wrote: Fourth, and this is a serious question, not a rhetorical one: What the hell ever happened to the movement to develop offshore and them skirt U.S. export laws thusly? Remember how RSA had created a European branch would would supposedly develop RSA-type softwar and then throw

Re: House committee ditches SAFE for law enforcement version

1999-07-26 Thread Bill Sommerfeld
[CC:'s to list I don't subscribe to deleted.] one possible escape clause here is a constitutional provision regarding immunity of legislators for acts in congress: [from article 1, section 6] ".. for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." ..

Re: House committee ditches SAFE for law enforcement version

1999-07-26 Thread Rick Smith
Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The sponsor of yesterday's amendment, Rep. Weldon, said that he wants to have a classified briefing //on the House floor// to scare members into voting his way. Look for killer amendments to SAFE to be offered during that floor vote, perhaps even

Re: House committee ditches SAFE for law enforcement version

1999-07-26 Thread John Denker
At 07:31 AM 7/26/99 -0400, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: ".. for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." But then again, i'm not a lawyer, and I'm also not sure how this provision has been interpreted in the past.. IANL but as you can imagine, members

Re: House committee ditches SAFE for law enforcement version

1999-07-25 Thread Declan McCullagh
I'm going to sleep soon so let me try a short answer... The House Rules committee decides what legislation will go to the House floor, what amendments will be in order, and in what sequence they will be presented (which is often very important). The House Rules committee is in a practice an

House committee ditches SAFE for law enforcement version

1999-07-22 Thread Declan McCullagh
The text of the amendment (in PDF): http://www.house.gov/hasc/press.htm http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20872.html Industry Crypto Bill in Peril by Declan McCullagh 5:00 p.m. 21.Jul.99.PDT

Re: House committee ditches SAFE for law enforcement version

1999-07-22 Thread Declan McCullagh
Right. Some of the congresscritters who voted yesterday for the natsec version of SAFE were ostensible supporters of the business version. True, this particular natsec version of SAFE doesn't include domestic controls -- plenty of time for Freeh to try that later -- but export relief?