>I did a search for that bill at Thomas a few days ago and could not
>find anything proposed since 9-11 that substantiates those claims. I
>take it the Justice Dept paper is a wish list that is currently being
>vetted by Congressional staff. So now is the time for US citizens to
>really light up the phones in Congress [and no that's not wankerism]
>
>Ian
if you really want, i'll check out my archives since i'm subscribed to
about 250 lists but i don't read them all, obviously. (i read fast though!
:) however, did you check out Eff.org? ordeclan mccullagh's list archives
at politechbot.com -- he ususally links to that sort of thing. it may also
have been posted at CYBER-L or Cypherpunks. or how about RedrockEater at
http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html Phil Agre has a boatload
of material from his list archived. Phil is also just wonderful about
parsing through the mess and generally tries to check things out
first...though he kinda lost it over Code Red recently. Also, Interesting
People list (Dave Farber--who's not as good as Phil about parsing the posts
he forwards to 1000s of subscribers!) http://www.interesting-people.org/
Wired has a piece by Declan that revealed that the agitation did work in toning down the bill.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,47199,00.html?tw=wn20010929
<text> Anti-Terror Bill Not Done Yet By Declan McCullagh 2:00 a.m. Sep. 29, 2001 PDT
WASHINGTON -- Negotiators are meeting through the weekend to decide whether hacking offenses and electronic surveillance will be part of a landmark anti-terrorism bill. . . . After public outcry, the House Judiciary committee abruptly postponed a vote originally scheduled for this week, and Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said some sections will require careful review.
Since then, aides for Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) -- the senior members of the House Judiciary committee -- have been meeting in private in hopes of crafting a version of the ATA that will encounter less rigorous opposition.
Provisions relating to the punishment of malicious hackers as terrorists may remain in the final draft. A source close to Conyers said committee members are "torn right now, because there is a law right now that protects against (hacking), so some believe it is unnecessary." (continues...) </text>
kelley