[3293] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Magaziner hints at easing of Crypto Export Regulations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard D. Murad)
Wed Sep 16 11:44:17 1998
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:07:18 -0400
To: cryptography@c2.net
From: "Richard D. Murad" <richard.murad@trw.com>
In-Reply-To: <35FE2677.2407915C@securemote.com>
At 08:33 AM 9/15/98 +0000, David L. Sifry wrote:
>The key word here is "freer". We already know that Mr. Magaziner
>disagrees with the official White House policy on export restrictions
>and escrow on strong crypto. Will this loosening of export
>restrictions entail the free distribution and export of 128-bit strong
>crypto, or will this export only be "free" if the keys are escrowed by
>the U.S. Government?
I just finished reading an interview with William Reinsch (US Commerce
Dept. Undersecretary) in the Sept.98 issue of ISCA's publication
Information Security. The lead is, "Commerce Undersecretary William
Reinsch defends the government's encryption export policy - even though it
puts him 'in the hot seat'."
My take on what Reinsch said is that in the final analysis, the US govt's
position will not change. Some of the technical details may be different,
but fundamentally, the need for "..balance - between privacy, electronic
commerce, law enforcement and national security" will not change. [Hey, I
only want to make your daughter a little pregnant.]
There are lots of words about industry's needs, etc., with the spin being
that there is a growing industry need for what the US Govt wants and that
the govt is only really interested in moving toward where the market is
going anyway - and of course Reinsch contends that the market wants key
recovery.
"I don't think they're [industry] doing it [submitting key recovery plans
as a condition of export approval] just because the government asked them
to; they're doing it because they see a market." - Reinsch
IMHO - bullshit! There is no industry need for real-time, ubiquitous,
covert, third-party access to keys and such a need by industry CANNOT be
demonstrated! That's it! [Sorry, couldn't resist. :-} ]
In this interview, with very carefully chosen words, Reinsch's message is
that overall policy will not change and though the actual technology used
may be undecided as of yet, and though acceptable key sizes may vary with
different approaches to crypto and recovery, the government will ultimately
end up with access to all communications - with a court order of course.
BTW, an editor's note states that in next month's issue, Bruce Schneier,
will respond to Reinsch's comments. I look forward to that.
Rick
The only question that has ever mattered:
"Who owns the tanks?"
