🚀 go-pugleaf

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
> In any case, the goverment may choose not to prosecute model makers but 
> that's no assurance they won't prosecute crypto issues, 
> particularly given their concern about those issues and the much 
> greater damage secure cryptography can do to intelligence collection, 
> compared to the damage from airplane models. 

In fact, model makers *have* gotten called on the carpet in the past.  I 
believe the most famous case was Revell's first model of the SR-71, in which 
they published quite accurate dimensions of the aircraft--those dimensions 
being at the time highly classified.  The Air Force was convinced that they 
had a security leak, until Revell pointed out that they had published an 
overhead photo of the plane on the ground, and that the size of the paving 
squares at the airfield *wasn't* classified :)...

I have found that many people have absolutely no idea how restrictive 
import/export law can be when it covers certain types of technology.  
Cryptographic technology is currently one of those areas, despite recent 
bills proposing to move software-only crypto technology into the domain of 
the Department of Commerce instead of the Department of State.

Though, as I've said before, I oppose restrictions on cryptographic 
technology in general, I do not base that objection on the right to privacy 
or freedom of information, but upon the *second* amendment: the right to keep 
and bear arms.



Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation