[1344] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Statement on internet, cryptography, etc. from European
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Stewart)
Wed Aug 20 11:57:19 1997
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:35:16 -0700
To: Tatu Ylonen <ylo@ssh.fi>
From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <199708142331.CAA10658@pilari.ssh.fi>
At 02:31 AM 8/15/97 +0300, Tatu Ylonen wrote:
>Walter de Bakker from the European Comission made a speech at the
>IETF, saying he was speaking on behalf of the European Comission. My
>understanding is that this was an official statement by the Comission.
>
>The speech also touched cryptography, first noting that data security
>is needed, and then said "strong encryption is necessary for
>electronic commerce <strong applauds from the audience>, within limits
>of applicable law for cryptographic products".
If the EC interpretation of such statements is anything like the U.N.'s,
this is a non-statement, which may be worse than no statement.
It's like the typical U.N. human rights document, which says that
everybody has the right to free speech*, subject to the needs of public
order, and that everybody has the right to freedom of religion*,
subject to the needs of public order, and everybody has the right to a
free press, subject to public order and government allocation of
broadcast bandwidth and the needs to preserve local cultural values, etc.
[*I'm abstracting these rather than quoting, but the
UN Declaration on the Rights of The Child is one of the
most blatant examples of this kind of dishonest self-contradiction.]
The question & non-answer reinforce this:
>Question: The statement said that strong cryptography is needed for
> electronic commerce; is it ok for everyone to use it for any purpose?
>Answer: yes.
>Continuing question: Will EU enforce it on countries?
>Answer: all countries signed it (otherwise no clear answer)
Since each country has agreed that anyone can use strong crypto for
electronic commerce, subject to whatever laws the government feels
like applying, and France currently doesn't let anyone use strong
crypto without permission, if France signed it, that's just further
confirmation that it's a promise that promises nothing.
[Tatu's abstract of the proceedings]
> - areas where self-regulation isn't sufficient
> [trademarks and intellectual property]
Money gets protected, which I suppose is a good thing? Human rights don't.
....
> - green paper coming: the protection of minds and human dignity
> - ensure application of existing laws
> - strengthened cooperation between member states on enforcing
> these laws
....
> - support free flow of information (within laws)
Again, this neither creates nor acknowledges rights to free speech -
existing laws appear to permit banning of politically incorrect speech
and writing by both the right wing and the left (Neo-Nazis and Radikal),
and maybe that the French and Danish and Netherlanders will be required
to help the Bavarian prosecutor fight Bavarian-defined pornography.
"Free flow of information (within laws)" means that the governments
can only ban information that they want to ban. It lets them
pretend to be liberals while tightening the screws on their people.
# Thanks; Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
# (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)
