The White Compromise is what I wrote about in my Netly piece last Wed? and my post of last night called "Congress & Crypto Roundup: Vote in Commerce cmte tomorrow."
From memory: The "compromise" would remove some export restrictions on crypto, provided that the program was readily available overseas already. It would not remove all export restrictions. (This is in the original SAFE bill, which it amends.)
It also includes those four points I wrote about, including giving the FBI tons of $$$ to buy them off. More disturbingly, it doubles the crypto-in-a-crime penalties. The crypto coalition letter sent around last week was right on this point: representatives should oppose //all// amendments to SAFE, including the White so-called "compromise." -Declan At 10:07 -0400 9/24/97, Scott Carr wrote:
I spoke to a staffer of Rep. Strictland's office (a rural Ohio district, I voted for the other guy last year, sigh...) and she did not know the Congressman's position on SAFE five and a half hours before the markup. Reading between the lines, he seems to be heading for the White "Compromise".
Now a question, does the White amendment remove export limitations on crypto? Strictland's legislative director stated that was her understanding. I thought it left the status quo in that regard.
(I am hearing that damned word "COMPROMISE" too many times talking to these jokers for my comfort. The only compromise I see is the compromising of my data and security.)