[118047] in Cypherpunks
Re: more re Encryption Technology Limits Eased
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Reese)
Sat Sep 18 02:56:54 1999
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990917203529.00a39b90@flex.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:35:29 -1000
To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>, cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Reese <reeza@flex.com>
In-Reply-To: <199909171741.TAA29883@mail.replay.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: Reese <reeza@flex.com>
At 07:41 PM 17-09-99 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
>Bill Stewart:
>> In the absence of technical constraints, it's hard to tell what the
>> technical review could be reviewing - we're being told to believe
>> that we're allowed to export full-strength crypto, and there aren't
>> requirements for key compromise, and "works in North Korea" isn't a
>> technical requirement, just a customer-destination one.
>
>Declan probably hit it on the head here. The intention is to gum up
>the works, monkey the wrench, sabot the tage. It is to make it harder
>to export crypto, so that only companies that really, really want to do
>it will be willing to go through with this. It will discourage adding
>crypto to other products like network interfaces, mail readers, etc.,
>because suddenly you've got to jump through this technical review hoop.
>It is one more barrier to ubiquitous built-in crypto, which is the law
>enforcement nightmare.
1934 Gun Control Act, $200.00 tax stamps revisited, how droll.
