Re: unSAFE won't pass?
Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>:
By late September, the Commerce committee will vote on SAFE. By mid-October, the committee chairs should have worked out a compromise package. This goes to the Rules committee, chaired by Solomon. Until last week he vowed to block SAFE. Now he'd like, I'm told, to get the FBI's version to the floor immediately. There are, however, only so many slots on the suspension calendar.
The thing I still don't understand is why anyone thinks the house will support the new bill. There were hundreds of co-sponsors for SAFE in its original form. The modified version is exactly the opposite of the original SAFE. So it seems like a majority of house members should oppose the bill. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
John, You don't understand the dynamic. At the NatSec hearing last week, there were two dozen cosponsors on the committee. But all but one voted to gut the bill. Many others said they were hoodwinked into signing on. The tide is changing. -Declan On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, John Smith wrote:
Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>:
By late September, the Commerce committee will vote on SAFE. By mid-October, the committee chairs should have worked out a compromise package. This goes to the Rules committee, chaired by Solomon. Until last week he vowed to block SAFE. Now he'd like, I'm told, to get the FBI's version to the floor immediately. There are, however, only so many slots on the suspension calendar.
The thing I still don't understand is why anyone thinks the house will support the new bill. There were hundreds of co-sponsors for SAFE in its original form. The modified version is exactly the opposite of the original SAFE. So it seems like a majority of house members should oppose the bill.
"John
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:28 PM 9/15/97 +0000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
John,
You don't understand the dynamic. At the NatSec hearing last week,
there
were two dozen cosponsors on the committee. But all but one voted to gut the bill. Many others said they were hoodwinked into signing on.
The tide is changing.
Jeez, I'm not trying to be contrary John or Declan, but here's my view: The chance that more than a few hyper-busy members of Congress actually understand this way-arcane issue is nearing zero. Let's face it; many if not most members don't even use a PC. Based on what I've heard in hearings and from staffers, my seat-of-the-pants guess is - oh - let's say 30 of the 535 members in House and Senate really get this. The rest are doing the best they can with limited information, most of the time responding to the last person they heard. Thus, 18 0f 22 co-sponsors of SAFE went the other way after hearing from the FBI. It's not so much that people are _changing_ their minds, it's that they still don't know enough to make an informed decision. Until the last few weeks, crypto never occupied the attention of more than a handful of the dozens of committees on the Hill. Unlike most issues, crypto _is_ rocket science to these folks - as it is to just about the entire world. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNB1UMNZgKT/Hvj9iEQInyQCfUeKWIsTrQX6O94abbhmnyM6BKD4AnRGR Tj0bmclmRMAAwGvM+t/akiZ/ =oZrk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Will Rodger Dont' want it printed? Cyberjournalist Don't let it happen. Optimist Alles vergangliche ist Skeptic nur ein Gleichnis.
participants (3)
-
Declan McCullagh -
John Smith -
Will Rodger