What explains this flurry of crypto-statements on the floor of the Senate on Saturday and Sunday? Simple: Our elected representatives had nothing else to do. By late Sunday evening, the vote over fast-track had been postponed ten times as union and corporate lobbyists jockeyed for position with the White House for votes. While smoke was filling the back rooms of the Capitol, members had nothing else to do but twiddle their thumbs. Debate noncontroversial legislation. Recount election battles. And pledge loyalty to strong crypto. Of course increased (or at least more effective) industry lobbying had something to do with the floor statements. These sorts of brief speeches are a sign of a well-honed lobbying campaign. Note, BTW, the tone of the Senate statements. The defeat of Burns' ProCODE bill in the Senate means that crypto-proponents are on the defensive. Murray is forced to say S.909 (McCain-Kerrey) "does not go far enough" in lifting export ctrls -- true, since it also sets up a key escrow infrastructure. There is no pro-crypto bill in the Senate now for crypto-advocates to rally around. (Leahy's is a key escrow wishlist.) Also note that Dreier's statements are significant: "Congress should lift the controls on encryption software" and not move towards mandatory key escrow. He is a senior member of the House Rules committee, which will pass judgement on and reconcile the five versions of SAFE sooner or later. One of those versions is the FBI-friendly one with restrictions on manufacture, distribution, and sale of unapproved crypto products. -Declan At 20:20 -0500 11/10/97, John Young wrote:
Declan, anyone, is this flood of statements due to an industry campaign, or one by Majortiy Leader Lott, or Speaker Gingrich, or a combination, or what?
What's your insider intel, Declan, will these initiatives continue into the next session or are they just cheap dues paying for the moment, while getting ready to sellout when the rain of if-you-knew-what-we've-been-briefed shit showers down next year?