Hoax: A ban on cryptography?
My mailer thinks the e$pam list pulled this from cypherpunks:
S.1666
Department of Commerce Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Passed by the Senate) << And this is bogus, and as far as I can tell not a typo, it's complete hokum. S.1666 is an obscure bill about courts in Utah. A search of http://thomas.loc.gov on "encryption" reveals the expected bills, PRO-CODE etc. A search for the DoC Authorization Act reveals nothing, as far as I can tell this bill has not been drafted let alone passed. I don't know enough about how the DoC is funded to know if they get their own Authorization Act or receive authorizations piecemeal and by the reconciliation. Again, this is bogus. !^NavFont02F02350014QGHHG|MG~HG85QG87HI}2126
The "hoax" is a dramatization of possible legislation based on the language used in Di Fi's anti-bomb-making-rhetoric legislation proposed and passed in the Senate. I posted that bill, and asked the list if anyone knew the status. Tim May responded with the dramatized crypto version and asked "What is the status of _this_ bill" [emphasis added] .... and if I interpret correctly, the intent was 1. to chide 2. to dramatize What if that WERE a bill being proposed?? David Kennedy wrote:
My mailer thinks the e$pam list pulled this from cypherpunks:
S.1666
Department of Commerce Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Passed by the Senate) <<
And this is bogus, and as far as I can tell not a typo, it's complete hokum.
S.1666 is an obscure bill about courts in Utah.
A search of http://thomas.loc.gov on "encryption" reveals the expected bills, PRO-CODE etc.
A search for the DoC Authorization Act reveals nothing, as far as I can tell this bill has not been drafted let alone passed. I don't know enough about how the DoC is funded to know if they get their own Authorization Act or receive authorizations piecemeal and by the reconciliation.
Again, this is bogus.
!^NavFont02F02350014QGHHG|MG~HG85QG87HI}2126
participants (2)
-
David Kennedy -
I=(!isnum(self))