🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov17.103439.19143@cactus.org>, ritter@cactus (Terry Ritter) writes:
> I see no reason to think that corporations would not be granted
> easy-to-get licenses if they use particular types of equipment.
>
> In fact, a March 1987 article in Data Communications magazine
> described NSA's Commercial Comsec Endorsement Program (CEEP) and
> Project Overtake encryption equipment in two classes:  Types I
> and II.  Type I would be available only to government agencies and
> contractors, but a Type II "module" would be a replacement for DES
> equipment, and would be built into a computer or communications
> device and sold by a vendor.

> Business use and personal use are two different things.  I think
> it quite likely that the government would like to license the
> first, and minimize the second.  Consequently, arguments based on
> American business competitiveness may be totally irrelevant to the
> continued use of strong cryptography by individuals.

Is this really what U.S. citizens want?

If it is, you've gone very far from the ideas and principles of the
Constitution.  Doesn't China currently have a somewhat similar policy
towards it's citizens, ie. supporting capitalism/business but not
individual or political freedom?

If it is not, it makes me wonder where is the problem, ie. what causes
such a great gap between what citizens want and what the government
wants.

Somehow this development doesn't seem isolated.  Take for instance
psychoactive substances - it's illegal to use stuff like amphetamines
as a private citizen, but in the army, when you're part of the
governemnt organization, it's OK.

Followups directed out of sci.crypt.

//Jyrki