🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct9.233126.10429@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>   1. RSA is pretty much a standard in Europe.
>   2. it is illegal to export RSA stuff from the US.

> this is just silly.

Isn't it.......

>am i reading this right? if it's true why is export of encryption
>schemes so much of a problem? apparently they're already out there.


The argument (only slightly rephrased by me from what I read) given by
Bobby Inman (ex-head of the NSA) was that:

1.	it's important to thwart crypto development in the private sector
as much as possible;

2.	all we have control over is the US and in particular US exports --
so that's what we're trying to control;

3.	the US is #1 in crypto research [they're working to make that not
true, of course, assuming it ever was] and #1 in computer manufacturing
[that's slipping, too -- never was true in crypto hardware, I believe
(excepting military contracts)];

4.	good crypto is like an atom bomb -- could make a major power of an
otherwise minor power -- needs to be suppressed -- mustn't be in the hands
of private citizens.


In other words (mine), the technology is out there but the US economy, if
it were allowed to produce good crypto in volume (eg., spurred on by
international markets), would flood the world with good crypto -- making it
likely that a lazy lawbreaker would be able to use good crypto and
therefore defeat eavesdropping.  The FBI is using roughly the same argument
for internal controls and demands for plaintext-tapping ports.


Nobody has argued against the idea that big time drug dealers can afford
good crypto equipment (eg., scrambler phones from Switzerland) -- but what
about the little folks -- high school students trying to buy a pound of pot
to sell to their friends?  Those are the real targets of this
administration -- along with people carrying large amounts of cash, of
course.  For all we know, the big time drug dealers are campaign
contributors....  :-(


What I want to know is how the candidates stand on this issue.  It's got a
small enough interest group that the debates will probably skip over it.
I'd expect Bush to keep up being DCI with all private citizens as the
potential enemy (who me?  paranoid?).  I'd worry a little about Perot --
given his habit of hiring private investigators.  I haven't heard from
Clinton anything to allow me to predict.

Does anyone else have a feel for this?