From declan@well.comWed Aug 7 11:45:36 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 19:47:57 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Stop the presses -- Anti-terrorism bill not that bad Stop the presses -- the other shoe didn't drop. Despite a flurry of last-minute hyperbole, the House passed an anti-terrorism bill this afternoon without the ominous encryption or wiretap provisions. Now the bill lies in the lap of the Senate, which probably will approve it later today or tomorrow before they leave town for the August recess. In the wake of the dual bombings, Congress wanted to be seen as taking *some* action before they adjourned, and last weekend Clinton and the Dems started lobbying hard for the heinous measures they wanted in an anti-terrorism bill. Vastly expanded state-snooping capabilities: multipoint wiretaps, warrantless short-term wiretaps, dialed-phone number recorders, and black and smokeless powder taggants. Even possible of anti-crypto language that Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general, has been shopping around for months. The Net owes its thanks to the House Republicans for stopping these fool Dems in a fine backroom political maneuver late last night. They did it through the House Rules Committee, which in the wee hours of the morning reported a rule allowing the GOP leadership to introduce the terrorism bill on the floor today -- without letting Democrats see it, amend it, or even send it back to committee. It was a good plan -- coordinated by Rep. Chris Cox -- keeping the legislation away from the hands of the Big Brother Dems. The Democrats waxed pissy. Rep. David Bonior, the party's whip, called the majority's maneuvering "extrordinary." John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, blasted Gingrich and the Republican leadership for "bringing a meaningless bill to the House floor." Conyers said to reporters at 1 pm: "It's a hoax on the American people. It is all bark and no bite... This bill is missing the important wiretapping provisions that would allow law enforcement to find and stop terrorists before they kill. The House Republicans and the NRA say we should not have emergency authority for surveillance even if we know terrorists are about to blow a plane out of the sky. They also say that we should not have wiretap authority for terrorists who use more than one telephone to make their deadly plans." Of course, this is political grandstanding at its finest -- or worst. Conyers conveniently neglected to add that law enforcement officers already have the right to use roving wiretaps with court approval. Also, there was a mixup over Digital Telephony funding, compounded by the text of the legislation's being kept secret until the last minute. Summaries distributed to reporters early this afternoon said: "The bill authorizes the FBI to use enhanced telephone technology to investigate suspected terrorist activity. Funding for equipment purchase was provided in the 1996 omnibus appropriations measure enacted earlier this year." But the DT provisions weren't in the final draft of the bill. Silly Congressperns. The House had *already* approved the DT slushfund on July 24 as part of the 1997 Commerce, Justice, State departments appropriations bill. Now the 1997 CJS appropriations bill goes to the Senate, which will decide how much cash to give Digital Telephony when they return in early September. What's going to happen? Well, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), a former prosecutor and longtime proponent of Digital Telephony, said yesterday at the Intelligence Committee hearing on terrorism: "I was proud to have worked with the FBI director to ensure passage of the Communications Assisatance for Law Enforcement Act, sometimes called the digital telephony law." With Republicans like the ones in the House, who needs so-called "civil libertarian" Democrats? -Declan From declan@eff.orgWed Aug 7 11:46:01 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:28:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: Stop the presses -- Anti-terrorism bill not that bad On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Stop the presses -- the other shoe didn't drop. Despite a flurry of > last-minute hyperbole, the House passed an anti-terrorism bill this > afternoon without the ominous encryption or wiretap provisions. Now > the bill lies in the lap of the Senate, which probably will approve it > later today or tomorrow before they leave town for the August recess. The Senate left without voting on the anti-terrorism bill. This is not good. They'll take it up in September, insert the wiretapping proposals, and then fight the House Repubs over it in conference committee. We have a one-month reprieve. I seem to recall Congress returns from its summer break on September 3. -Declan // declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com // From declan@well.comWed Aug 7 11:46:13 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 12:01:46 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: House approves anti-terrorism bill, goes to Senate, from C-Net http://www.cnet.com/Content/News/Files/0,16,2035,00.html House approves anti-terrorism bill By Rose Aguilar August 2, 1996, 6:15 p.m. PST The United States House of Representatives tonight approved the Anti-Terrorism act of 1996 by a sweeping 389 to 22 vote, but to the relief of Net activists passed a version free of amendments that would have regulated Net content, restricted encryption technology, and expanded the use of wiretapping. The Democrats fought hard for the encryption, Internet, and wiretapping provisions, but lost to arguments from conservatives and libertarians that the provisions would be an infringement of citizens' First Amendments rights. The law that was approved by the house also did not include the amendment re-introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein that would have made it a felony to publish information about bombs and bomb-making on the Internet. [...] The anti-terrorism section of the bill adds several terrorism-related crimes to the list of offenses included in the federal antiracketeering law. Under this section, the penalty for unlawful disclosure of information obtained from a wiretap doubles from 5 to 10 years. The bill went to the Senate today. Supporters would like the bill to be approved without changes and then sent to the President. The Senate may vote as early as Saturday or may decide to make changes and wait to approve its own version until next month. "I don't think we're out of the woods yet," said online activist Declan McCullagh. "The Senate may or may not act tomorrow, but I think the Net has a reprieve from the Net crackdown in terms of bomb information until September," he said. ###