Xref: utzoo comp.unix.internals:1726 sci.crypt:4032
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!dramba!janm
From: janm@dramba.neis.oz (Jan Mikkelsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: DES export regulations.  And what to do about it!
Message-ID: <1991Jan4.201233.14909@dramba.neis.oz>
Date: 4 Jan 91 20:12:33 GMT
References: <1548@inews.intel.com> <1991Jan3.173546.9809@dramba.neis.oz> <14511@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: Dramba Holdings, Lindfield, Australia
Lines: 29

In article <14511@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>People can endlessly debate the small points of the rules; I want to
>understand the big ones.  WHY SHOULD PRIVACY TECHNOLOGY BE ILLEGAL?
>Why does the US government think that privacy is something neither its
>subjects, nor the citizens of other countries, should have?

I agree, privacy technology should not be illegal.  I cannot see the
justification for restricting software DES implementations, nor most
hardware implementations.  I have a couple of Schlumberger M64 smart
cards lying around which do DES in a monolithic chip, with secure key
storage.  I don't know what the situation with devices like this is in
the United States, but I that it would be very hard to enforce a
restriction on devices such as this.

There are however, other aspects of an implementation for which I can
see the justification for treating as sensitive, which have nothing to
do with DES, or any other crypto system.  For example:

>                                         I don't think techniques for
>heat-sinking, sealing, shielding, etc are export-controlled, though
>there are some that are classified (and thus aren't even available to the
>U.S. public).

Now, what can be done about making crypto systems more available to
the masses?
-- 
Jan Mikkelsen
janm@dramba.neis.oz.AU or janm%dramba.neis.oz@metro.ucc.su.oz.au
"She really is."