[107982] in Cypherpunks
Re: Australian Crypto? (Re: Export ban kills Nexus' WHO deal)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Broiles)
Sat Jan 30 22:11:21 1999
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:00:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
In-Reply-To: <v03130318b2d94494dfae@[209.66.100.116]>
Reply-To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Tim May wrote:
> It certainly doesn't sound like Australia will then be the source of
> world-wide strong crypto incorporated into SSL, as some were envisioning
> when the Australial RSA deal was announced.
RSA has coped with tightened regulations on their subsidiaries in the past
- for example, if I'm remembering the timeline correctly, Japan started
controlling crypto hardware shortly after RSA formed RSA Japan.
This is not necessarily incompatible with RSA's plans - it's entirely
possible that Australia will (after forms are filled out, bureacrats
stroked, inflamed policies soothed) permit RSA to make a few high-value
exports of the technology to selected clients. Their press releases
mentioned that the'd been working closely with the US' BXA, so they're
obviously willing to jump through the hoops when necessary to close a
deal. The helpful confidentiality policies enforced by the export
ministries in the US and abroad make it easy for them to permit something
to one company, and deny it to another .. and nobody knows enough to
complain, because it's all private.
RSA (as well as other players in this space) have learned how to make
money in a regulation-rich atmosphere, and probably won't be harmed by
more of it. It's a barrier to entry to smaller, less politically
connected, less legally savvy companies who might want to compete.
--
Greg Broiles
gbroiles@netbox.com
