[279] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: GAK in domestic crypto products
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Geer)
Fri Feb 21 17:32:52 1997
To: cryptography@c2.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:24:25 EST."
<2.2.32.19970221202425.006c7178@remote.transarc.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:14:48 -0500
From: Dan Geer <geer@OpenMarket.com>
Peter Trei writes:
>incentive....
Refer to Draft #9 of "A FRAMEWORK FOR GLOBAL ELECTRONIC COMMERCE"
as found at http://www.iitf.nist.gov/eleccomm/glo_comm.htm
Keying commentary to line numbers consistent with a text-only
retrieval of the online copy cited above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
688 The most recent initiative permits companies to export encryption
689 products using 56-bit Data Encryption Standard (DES) or equivalent
690 algorithms for the next two years, provided such companies commit to
691 build and market products that protect public safety and national
692 security. No key lengths or algorithm restrictions will apply to
693 exported key recovery products. Such key-recovery products would
694 enable government access to encrypted data collected during
695 legally-authorized criminal investigations. Domestic use of key
696 recovery will be voluntary: any American will remain free to use any
697 encryption system domestically.
The draft's survey of export concludes with a misrepresentation of
the current export policy's goals.
The true explanation of the current effort is a testimony to the
strategic skill of the regulators, but it is not as stated here.
Export controls are meaningless without domestic use restrictions and
domestic use restrictions will never pass the test of the First
Amendment. Therefore, in an effort to obtain what cannot be obtained
politically, this administration makes the following ploy:
(1) Withhold from American companies the wherewithal to compete
internationally by crippling the products they may export;
(2) Offer to those companies that will include the functional equivalent
of domestic use restrictions in their products a competitive
advantage that could never otherwise withstand any fairness test;
(3) Declare the resulting imposition of domestic use controls to be
the "voice of the marketplace" and "voluntary ."
This is as shameful as saying that a rape victim was "asking for it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My full comments, from which the above is abstracted, are at
ftp://ftp.std.com/pub/geer/testimony.whitehouse.16i97.lpt
--dan
