It seems to me in general that this type of policy remains very attractive;
governments in particular tend to prize temporary security over essential
freedom. This policy was so obviously silly in its technical detail that it
would inevitably need to be withdrawn, though I was impressed by the speed and
openness with which that was done here.
But in general, playing whack-a-mole takes a lot of energy especially when the
policies themselves are largely copypasta. Perhaps we should put together an
IAB/program form letter ("So You've Decided to Ban Crypto, Here's Why That
Won't Work") that we can quickly tailor to the details in order to be able to
make constructive public comments *before* the withdrawal happens next time? :)
Cheers,
Brian
> On 22 Sep 2015, at 13:49, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm not so sure we should take comfort in their withdrawal of the policy as
> all reports are that they are revising and reissuing... We'll see what the
> next iteration involves!
>
> On Tuesday, September 22, 2015, Dan York <[email protected]> wrote:
> There was a significant amount of public outcry yesterday within India and
> the latest news is that the government of India is apparently withdrawing the
> draft policy:
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Government-withdraws-draft-of-encryption-policy/articleshow/49057232.cms
>
> Prior to that the government agency involved had already issued an update
> saying that the draft policy would NOT apply to TLS in web commerce and
> social media, messaging, etc. The update document seems to have been
> removed, but is captured here by a news site:
>
> http://www.medianama.com/2015/09/223-india-draft-encryption-policy/
>
> Dan
>
>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sheesh, there is so much wrong in that document. And they
>> top it off by recommending RC4.
>>
>> Does anyone know if this is a policy that is likely to be
>> enforced or one that'd be more honoured in the breach?
>>
>> S.
>>
>> On 21/09/15 17:45, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>>> Obviously, of relevance to those that will be at the IAB MARNEW
>>> workshop this week (although this isn't in any way specific to radio
>>> networks).
>>>
>>> * Everyone (all individuals and businesses) using encryption must
>>> store unencrypted content for 90 days
>>> * Government will dictate algorithms and key sizes
>>> * Possibility of a legally mandated backdoor
>>>
>>> Article from Daily Dot:
>>> http://www.dailydot.com/politics/india-encryption-backdoors-draft-policy/
>>>
>>> Text of the proposal (comments due 16 Oct.):
>>> https://info.publicintelligence.net/IN-DraftEncryptionPolicy.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> perpass mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
>
> --
> Dan York
> Senior Content Strategist, Internet Society
> [email protected] +1-802-735-1624
> Jabber: [email protected]
> Skype: danyork http://twitter.com/danyork
>
> http://www.internetsociety.org/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph Lorenzo Hall
> Chief Technologist
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I ST NW STE 1100
> Washington DC 20006-4011
> (p) 202-407-8825
> (f) 202-637-0968
> [email protected]
> PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
> fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> perpass mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
_______________________________________________
perpass mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
