On 1999-07-28 17:52:04 -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
> * footnote: Actually, Wassenaar used to control military crypto
> gear. To the extent that commercial, civilian crypto software is
> now a functional replacement for controlled military crypto gear,
> despite the fact that it has never been designed for military use,
> perhaps Wassenaar's controls *have* been rendered immaterial. But
> the cure is not to deny civilians the freedom to invent and
> communicate, the cure is to adapt one's self to the new world, as
> we have adapted to thousands of other technology-based changes
> including today's capability for widespread interception.
That's half-correct. Actually, I heared some comments such as
"trying to describe mass market" with respect to the 1998 results.
Obviously, this is nonsense, since the mass market which is exempted
from controls by the 1998 results just does not exist. There is no
market for 64bit symmetric crypto, when pretty much every standard
of interest uses algorithms with 128bit keys, and this for years
now.
With respect to Ms Reno's letter, she doesn't even try to argue from
the WA's initial principles: Note the wording "interests of national
security and public safety in the face of the challenge posed by the
increasing use of encryption internationally". I'm quite sure she
doesn't want to express her worry that Russian military starts to
use cryptography with this.
Also note that she seems to be rather satisfied about the "control
[on] the distribution of mass market encryption software of certain
cryptographic strength". Once again, not even the faintest attempt
to present a reasoning oriented at Wassenaar's Initial Principles.
