[3305] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: Magaziner hints at easing of Crypto Export Regulations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ernest Hua)
Thu Sep 17 11:21:23 1998
From: Ernest Hua <Hua@teralogic-inc.com>
To: "'Matt Blaze'" <mab@crypto.com>, Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:54:03 -0700
Well said ... I couldn't agree more ...
That is why I have argued that we, as cypherpunks (as we call
ourselves), should code and establish some legal-harassment-proof method of
distributing strong cryptography domestically. This has GOT to be so easy
that joe user without so much as a clue can click and get strong crypto
installed, hassle-free (or be denied if the "system" determines
ineligibility).
Until it gets THAT EASY, we, as amateurs, cannot spread software the
same way professionals like Netscape or Microsoft can.
Of course, if a user of this system should decide to export in
violation of ITAR/EAR, that is not our problem, even though we clearly know
just how futile any remind of ITAR/EAR to that user would be. In fact, that
would be a very nice side effect of getting strong crypto into everyone's
hands, as it would be impossible to expect every single user to strictly
follow ITAR/EAR.
At that point of saturation, ITAR/EAR will be like the anti-sodomy
laws that still exists in many states today (or the 1 child law in China):
You can legislate and regulate all you want, but no one will take it
seriously.
Ern
--------
> - Even by entering into the debate over export and key escrow,
> we've lost valuable energy that could have been put into deploying
> crypto widely domestically. Even though there are no domestic
> crypto restrictions, there are virtually no mainstream domestic
> crypto products on the market today actually protecting real
> data. (The percentage of encrypted Internet backbone traffic,
> perhaps the most likely place we'd expect to see encryption,
> given SSL products like netscape, is still virtually zero).
> Every day we (the industry) engages in the export debate in order
> to be able to ship one strong international product tomorrow
> instead of producting a strong domestic version today is a day
> that people in the US are denied the use of strong crypto.
> In large part *because* of the crypto debate, almost no one is
> is investing serious effort into domistic crypto, despite the
> lack of *any* laws restricting it's use or sale.
>
> I'd say we've "compromised" quite a bit.
>
> -matt
