Article View: sci.crypt
Article #2509Re: Non-U.S. crypto laws
From: Owen Lewis
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:52
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:52
93 lines
5744 bytes
5744 bytes
-=> Quoting David Sternlight to All <=-
DS> I'm curious. What are the crypto laws in the U.K., Germany, and
DS> Finland, from which most of the posts come. Is it really true
DS> that PGP is legal there, or do such countries also have laws
DS> about import, posession, or use of cryptographic software,
DS> which have conveniently not been mentioned in this discussion?
What a good question! I wish I could promise you as good an answer.
The following are some of the facts for UK, as I understand them I
would be grateful for others' addition, correction or amplification as
may be required.
I believe we have no law dealing specifically with the import/
ownership/use of cryptologic systems. We have a maze of regulations,
whose establishment is no doubt based in statute law. These regulations can
be changed or re-interpreted from time to time by the public servants
charged with their administration without recourse to Parliament or to the
courts. However such changes or re-interpretations may be challenged in the
courts on a case-by case basis. The government agents do not always win.
In practice at least, software implementations seem to be treated differently
from hardware implementations; there are also further observeable
distinctions attempted between hardware designed to protect the transmission
of information over formal networks as opposed to the protection of
(principally) speech in wireless transmission.
Taking these in reverse order:
- A cryptologic device to secure wireless transmissions
requires a licence (as does any transmitter) from the Department of
Trade and Industry. To the best of my knowledge, no licence has been
granted in UK to allow possession of such equipment by other than
governmental or quasi-governmental organisations. Digital encryptors
for speech over the PSTN etc. may be supplied to UK corporate users
on a case-by-case basis; also, before such devices may be used in
direct or indirect connection to the PSTN, the devices must be
thoroughly examined and approved by the Office of Telecommunications.
- On-line systems for the protection of textual and graphical
information are slowly increasing in corporate hands, led by the
banks and other financial institutions. Despite the inherent
difficulties with the technology, fax encryption is slowly
becoming more common. Such equipment is both made in the UK and
imported. Where direct or indirect connection to the PSTN is intended
approval is requires as above.
- Software cipher implementations for the protection of
information held in storage is more widespead than any of the foregoing
and is not subject to end-user licencing. Some cryptosystems are
available that include the protection of information in transmission
on area networks. These do not seem to be subject to licencing control.
Software designed to allow the off-line crypto protection of
information intended for transmission via the PSTN or packet switched
networks is quite uncommon. I believe this to be due to the fact that
such systems are essentially limited to low traffic density situations
and also that the penetration of data comms into small business and
personal use is still quite limited in the UK. One commercial software
PC security package with a LAN and PSTN suited cipher system is Fifth
Generation's S.A.F.E. product. This is imported from the US and sold,
as I understand it, without additional UK licencing restrictions.
There are (or were) a choice of ciphers offered to suitable customers.
A DES implementation, subject to the US rules governing that system,
and a proprietary algorithm.
There is a British freeware product that would seenm to ante-date PGP. This
too uses a software RSA implementation for the key management of any one of
a range of main ciphers, including a DES CFB option.
PGP has well and truly arrived in the UK but is unknown (asis any cipher
system) to the vast majority of the population, who are unconcerned with
such things. It is not in the least probable that PGP's arrival has gone
unnoticedby the government's Communications and Electronic Security Group
and it isreasonable to assume that that information is therefore available
to all interested government agencies, such as the Department of Trade and
Industry. My understanding is that neither the possession nor use of PGP2.x
in the UK can constitute an offence against UK law. The unlicenced export
of PGP2.x from the UK to other countries might be in breach of the COCOM
regulations to which the UK is signatory. Such unlicenced export might
therefore create an offence in English law.
Others maycare to post and fill in or correct some of this outline. I
am not a lawyer and will therefore try and get the view of a UK lawyer,
knowledgable in the field, to answer you with more authority.
Regards,
Owen
.. Enter any 12-digit prime number to continue.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<16.2B394403@purplet.demon.co.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pipex!gate.demon.co.uk!demon!purplet!Owen.LewisShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.crypt From: Owen.Lewis@purplet.demon.co.uk (Owen Lewis) Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pipex!gate.demon.co.uk!demon!purplet!Owen.Lewis Subject: Re: Non-U.S. crypto laws Organization: FidoNet node 2:252/305.0 - The Purple Tentacle, Reading Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:52:00 +0000 Message-ID: <16.2B394403@purplet.demon.co.uk> Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk Lines: 94