Re: Lawz to be.

17 Dec 2003

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

At 07:20 PM 3/10/96 -0500, Matt Blaze wrote:
...
While I don't agree with some of the conclusions you reached in your note,
By now you should have seen my most recent item, an editorial by George
Will.  The case he describes should make it clear to you that the abuse of
property owned by an "innocent victim" does not protect that person from
confiscation of his property.  Or did you think it would?
...
I certainly agree that the Leahy bill would be better for cryptography
without this crime.  I hope that section gets further narrowed (or removed
altogether), but based on discussions I've had with various Senate staffers,
I'm not optimistic that it will be.
Okay, here are some questions you should be asking them:

1.  Why was this one highly negative section added to what is otherwise 
apparently a good bill?  Whose fingerprints are on it?

2.  "All" bills can be amended.  "Why not this section?!?"

3.  "Why is this section so ambiguous?"

4.  What crimes, EXACTLY, do you intend to prosecute using this section?

5.  Can you list any examples of REAL incidents that have already occurred 
that would be in violation of this section if it were already in law?  
(Surely they know of some, right?!?)  If they can think of no such examples, 
ask them why they are putting a "useless provision" into a law and why is it 
so important that it be there that we can't have it removed.

6.  And finally, "what are you guys afraid of?"
...
If you feel strongly about this,
You don't know how strongly I feel about this.
...
I urge you to lobby your Senators
(and representatives, since there's also a House version of the bill) and
tell them exactly what you like and don't like about this legislation, as
I am doing with mine.
-matt
If that is all that I was planning to do to stop this bill, I would consider 
myself to be a slacker.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Klaatu Burada Nikto...   Which should stop this damn bill if you guys don't.

Re: Lawz to be.

jim bell