🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1378@kitty.UUCP>, larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
> 	A computer SHIPPED WITH crypt(1) constitutes an "encryption device".
> A computer shipped separately and with no obvious connection with encryption
> software does NOT constitute an encryption device, and is therefore exempt
> from this export prohibition (but the computer may be restricted from export
> for OTHER reasons - but we are not discussing "high technology" export
> restrictions here).  Software, sold alone and with no obvious connection
> to a particular computer does NOT (under present definitions) constitute an
> "encryption device", and is therefore exempt from any export controls.
> 	HOWEVER, AT&T, DEC, and other vendors cannot clearly separate the
> hardware from that of crypt(1) software in a manner sufficient to avoid any
> possible hassle with the U.S. Department of State - so they have chosen to
> "avoid the hassle" and simply make crypt(1) unavailable for export.
> 	In the _particular_ case of the UNIX operating system and crypt(1),
> this alleged restriction seems rather silly to me - but who am I to question
> AT&T, DEC or the U.S. Department of State???
> 
> ==>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York
> ==>  UUCP:  {allegra|decvax|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
> ==>  VOICE: 716/688-1231           {hplabs|ihnp4|seismo|utzoo}!/
> ==>  FAX:   716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3}      "Have you hugged your cat today?" 

I used to work on Codata 3300 (68000 based) Unix machine in India, and the
Unix was a port by UniSoft (Version 7).  This was back in 1983-84 and we
certainly did have crypt(1) on that version.  I remember UniSoft's
disclaimer to any files stored as crypted.
-- 
Sanjeev Shah
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Electronic Information Exchange System II
Newark, NJ 07102

njbell:   W(201)596-3426  H(201)485-8965
arpa:     argus!shah@bellcore.arpa
uucp:     ...ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!shah
          ...{seismo!topaz!caip,allegra!princeton}!andromeda!argus!shah