At 06:19 PM 6/21/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, jim bell wrote:

...

...

...

Since "everybody" is supposed to agree that the Leahy encryption bill is dead, dead, dead, I don't see this as being any kind of problem. It was disliked by Clinton and the Denning-types, and with the exception of a short flurry of mistaken optimism around here, it was roundly excoriated here as well.

To which which Leahy Bill are you referring?

The one introduced on February 26, 1996.

I think the above message was refering to "procode" however.

Certainly not by name. It merely referred to legislation that Leahy "sponsored." Leahy _did_ seem to act like he was in favor of the Burns bill, as well, after ECPA got the bad press, and maybe he's a co-sponsor of the Procode bill as well. Even so, the letter did not appear to be CC:'d to Burns, so I conclude that it was intended to refer to at least the ECPA, if not both bills. United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence June 7, 1996 SSCI #96-2219B The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy United States Senator Senate Russell Building, Room 433 Washington, D.C. 20510-4502 Dear Pat: We write to express our concerns about legislation you have sponsored which would impact directly upon federal encryption policy, including export control policy. Recognizing that American innovation in encryption technology is unequaled, we appreciate the need to balance US economic competitiveness with the need to safeguard national security interests. As such, it is our belief that this legislation requires careful study and reflection and that the Senate and the Congress as a whole should proceed with caution until all of the implications of such an initiative are fully discerned. Along these lines, it is our understanding that industry representatives are currently meeting with the Administration to discuss new policy initiatives to address this issue. Also, both the Congress and the Administration have undertaken to conduct a thorough analysis of a two-year congressionally-mandated study on federal encryption policy that was facilitated by the National Research Council. We therefore feel that your legislation initiative at this time is premature. We appreciate your efforts to bring some needed clarity to United States policy in this area and wish to keep the lines open for discussion and debate on this important issue. The staff point of contact on this issue is our Committee Counsel, Mark Heilbrun, who can be reached at 224-1700. Sincerely, Arlen Specter J. Robert Kerrey Chairman Vice-Chairman cc: The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com