Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Udhay Shankar N]

At 02:05 PM 7/29/99 -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote:

>The more money people make with internet commerce, the fewer legs 
>totalitarians will have to stand on when they call for the 
>criminalization of strong cryptography.

I wish I could agree with you. I think, however, that your thesis holds
only when internet commerce grows beyond a critical mass. This has not yet
happened. Why do you think Big Brother is stepping up efforts to jack(boot)
in to your life before it's too late ?

Udhay
-- 
__ 
http://www.unimobile.com/  http://pobox.com/~udhay 
  sign up for the Unimobile beta today!
In touch.  Informed.  In control.

RE: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Lucky Green]

Eugene wrote:
> Should strong crypto be outlawed, my mail traffic will consist mostly
> of Pretty Goofy Pictures, and snowy video feed from the webcam. Most
> of them will be really just pretty goofy pictures, with a wee bit of
> nondeterministic noise added.

Such means of stego communication are not open to industry or the masses.
More importantly, stego is unsuitable for communications outside an existing
circle of conspirators.

Governments don't care so much about the fringe using strong crypto.
Government however greatly care about the average industrial espionage
target not using crypto. They couldn't care less what, Eugene Leitl, as an
individual or member of a small group uses. Which is not to say that
governments won't outlaw your use of crypto. But controlling the fringe is
just gravy compared to the billions in revenue and positions of power such
as Chancellor, Minister, Governor, President, Duce, Senator, and
Representative, all of which can be achieved exclusively by controlling the
mainstream.

> Besides, you can control buddy-to-buddy software distribution exactly
> as well as prevent people from swapping mp3 warez among friends. What
> next, outlaw compilers? Outlaw hardware? Outlaw people? Don't think so.

Can one prevent the use of strong crypto completely? Of course not. Which,
not coincidentally, was not my claim. Can one prevent the near universal use
of strong end-to-end encryption? Of course one can. It has been successfully
prevented for many years now. It will continue to be prevented.

I see you are emailing from Germany. Do you have a Handy? Do you know just
how bad the voice privacy features of your Handy really are? If so, do you
believe the next generation Handys will offer significantly better voice
privacy features? If you do not believe that the next generation will be
much better (you would be correct), ask yourself why you do not believe
this. And then ask yourself that given the reasons why you do not believe
that the next generation of Handys will be better, if you truly believe that
strong crypto will become ubiquitous in even the medium term future.

To just briefly address outlawing hardware, that's already here. Has been
for years. "Unauthorized Access Devices", DVD controllers that output the
raw data stream, AMPS kits, a complete list would require pages. As for
outlawing people, examples are legion throughout human history up to the
present day.

--Lucky

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Ted Lemon]

> It can only be resolved by software and hardware designers choosing
> to integrate it seamlessly into their products with or without the
> permission of their rulers.

To some degree this is happening in the Open Source community, but in
order to make strong crypto ubiquitous for, e.g., cell phones, you
need for some cell phone manufacturer to release the source code for
their phone's firmware, and information about how to upload new
versions of the firmware, and their phone needs to be competitively
priced.   To make it work without really screwing up the audio
quality, you also need the cooperation of the cell sites, so that you
can have a digital connection from phone to phone.   This seems
impossible, since the people who deploy these things are big companies
with deep pockets and no vested interest in rocking the boat on
crypto.

So while your proposed solution may have some good effect, it is
unlikely to result in strong crypto being widely deployed and usable
by Joe Average.   I don't think it's even likely to be widely-enough
deployed that governments will be unable to make use of the fact that
a message is encrypted to tell which messages it's important to spend
CPU time on.   Unfortunately, the average Internet user at this point
just isn't a crypto-geek.   You *have* to educate people about crypto
- you *can't* be elitist.

> Since the demands of digital commerce seem to require strong crypto,
> and since governments don't write much software, government opinions
> on the matter are somewhat meaningless.

Banks already have permission to use strong crypto.   And they don't
care that they have to get permission - they fill out so much
paperwork already that one more form is down in the noise to them.

> In the meantime, hot rhetoric can be entertaining, relaxing, motivating for
> lurkers, and can serve to notify the opposition that there is at least one
> more redskin off the reservation.  Sows FUD.

Making people who are weaker than you afraid is a good way to get them
not to attack you.   Making people who are stronger than you afraid is
a good way to get them *to* attack you.   I think that in this case,
the USG falls into the latter category.   Many of these people have
very strong good intentions, but are more worried about protecting Joe
Average than they are about making things easy for you or for Digital
Commerce as an end in itself.   The rest of the people are scarier
still.   If you want to win out over these people, the way to do it is
not by raising their hackles.

As to the joy of hot rhetoric, it makes *me* feel more hopeless and
impotent to do anything about the problem.  It does not give me
pleasure.  I *know* that stockpiling guns isn't a solution to this
problem, at least for me, a U.S. citizen.  I *don't* believe that this
battle is going to be won by engineers putting their futures on the
line, and it's *certainly* not going to be won by publically-traded
companies with deep pockets and a lot to lose.  So hot rhetoric, to
me, makes me just want to unsubscribe from the mailing list and go
play piano or something.  Is that really what you hope to accomplish?

I wonder if you think most people are sitting around reading about
stockpiling guns and thinking to themselves, "yeah, I wish I'd said
that?"  What I think most people would *actually* say, if they read
this kind of rhetoric, is "how do I get as far away from these people
as I possibly can?"

   _MelloN_

RE: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Eugene Leitl]

Lucky Green writes:

 > [Before a reader replies with an argument based on a claim that strong
 > crypto is in the process of becoming ubiquitous, please take a look at your
 > phone. Does it perform 3DES encryption? Do the phones of the majority of

Phone? Why do I need a stupid phone if there's http://www.speakfreely.org/
It's cheaper, too.

 > people you call perform 3DES encryption? Alternatively, you could take a
 > look your email client. Does it support strong crypto? Great! Now what

Sure.

 > percentage of emails you send *and receive* each day use strong crypto? If
 > your answer is 95% or higher, you might have a point, if it wasn't for the
 > fact that the Minister hasn't been shown the video tape just yet].
 
Should strong crypto be outlawed, my mail traffic will consist mostly
of Pretty Goofy Pictures, and snowy video feed from the webcam. Most
of them will be really just pretty goofy pictures, with a wee bit of
nondeterministic noise added.

Besides, you can control buddy-to-buddy software distribution exactly
as well as prevent people from swapping mp3 warez among friends. What
next, outlaw compilers? Outlaw hardware? Outlaw people? Don't think so.

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Ted Lemon]

> If we lose crypto, we must already have guns laid by.

How likely do you think it is that when you use rhetoric like this, it
is *not* then used to discredit you in the top-secret briefings the
Senate gets from the anti-crypto lobbyists?  You must know that having
guns laid by is just going to get you dead.  It's going to have no
effect at all on the government.

By saying something like this, you are inviting them to group you
together with the likes of Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh.  Senators
and Congresspeople do not like people like Timothy McVeigh, and would
tend not to listen to them in the unlikely event that they were called
to testify before Congress.

There really is a constituency for restrictions on crypto.  This
constituency actually has a good reason for wanting them.  Their hope
of controlling strong crypto in the long run is probably unfounded,
but still, they're fighting the good fight against you for what are
arguably good reasons, and talking about guns just makes you look like
a jerk and them look like The Good Guys.

If you want to win this battle, convince the American public that
you're right.  If the NRA can do it, with much less lofty goals, you
can do it too.  Just don't go around telling the American people to
stockpile guns to take down the crypto-oligopoly.  Most Americans
don't think much of that kind of rhetoric, so you won't develop a
broad base of support.  The NRA uses the Constitution, deer hunting,
Mom and Apple pie, not talk of emulating David Koresh.   Much as I
dislike them, I think we would do well to follow their example.

   _MelloN_

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Robert Hettinga]

Actually, um, kiddies, the more "corruption", the better. Corruption 
meaning "greed". Profit, in other words.

I say buy the bastards off. Literally.

Make so much money with financial cryptography, with economic 
cryptography, with crypto-economics, that state actors -- like Reno, 
and Aaron, and the Chinese Communist Party, and erst-KGBs everywhere 
-- have to go play in the other room or they'll piss their 
constituents off.


The reason Wassenaar, et. al., is going to fail, *is* failing, has 
nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with "human rights" 
as defined in any political sense. It certainly has nothing to do 
with morals. In fact, the more politics, and even appeals to 
morality, that they use to try to get what they want, the better I 
like it. It'll be like watching someone apply the "power" of prayer, 
or positive thinking, or moral suasion, to gravity -- then stepping 
off a cliff.


It has *everything* to do with economics, however, and that's what 
makes their job completely impossible, and mine so emotionally 
satisfying.

The more money people make with internet commerce, the fewer legs 
totalitarians will have to stand on when they call for the 
criminalization of strong cryptography.


By creating cypherspace out of cyberspace, internet cryptography 
protects the execution, and someday clearing and settlement, of 
internet transactions, and as a result, internet *business*. Internet 
business is much more important than meatspace *government* is, much 
less its military or police. After all, if there is no business, 
there is nobody to extort economic economic rent from. Obviously, the 
economics of financial cryptography will someday ensure that 
nation-sates are not going to *have* anyone to extort economic rent 
from. But nation-states certainly don't understand that, and, even if 
they did, they couldn't stop it anyway, because, again, people will 
save, will *earn*, too much money, too much *profit*, when they use 
strong cryptography on the internet to conduct their business.

And, fortunately for those of us who are making the geodesic economy 
a reality, states are so focused on repressing their populations, 
using the *politics* of cryptography, that they don't see the 
invisible hand of the market eventually squashing them like bug.

So, again, financial cryptography -- economic cryptography -- is the 
only cryptography that matters.

Political cryptography, as practiced by states, *or* their enemies, 
no matter how august they are or pure their intention, is almost as 
useless as cryptopolitics.

In fact, the more state actors practice cryptopolitics and political 
cryptography, the better I'm beginning to like it.

Here's hoping that the cryptography community concentrates on where 
the money is. So, of course, they can give erstwhile totalitarians a 
fat tip detailing the car so nice.


Cheers,
RAH

-
Robert A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Rick Smith]

At 09:54 AM 7/29/99 -0700, Tom Perrine wrote:

>Ever taken a look for pgp.2.6.x, Kerberos, SSH or other "controlled
>software" available for anonymous FTP from .GOV and .MIL systems?  A
>few minutes with your favorite search engine is quite enlightening :-)

What astonishes me is that some government and contractor sites end up
deploying 40 bit SSL on their desktops. Not everyone, of course, and some
servers are smart enough to insist on 128 bits, but strong commercial
crypto isn't the natural and automatic choice even in "national security"
communities.

So 40 bit SSL is actually a threat to national security.

Rick.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Dan Geer]

I've thought for some time that it's time to just solve the
problem.  All we need is a couple hundred million bucks.
Given that Ross Perot was able to make a credible run for
President on a hundred million dollars, it should be perfectly
feasible to find someone who is electable, marketable, has a
skeleton in his closet, and who will sign an executive order
once elected.


"honest politician"  --  one who once bought stays bought

--dan

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Tom Perrine]

> On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:52:04 -0700, John Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>> >use of the Internet to distribute encryption products 
>> >will render Wassenaar's controls immaterial."

See below :-)  s/Internet/.GOV and .MIL computers/

John> If Ms. Reno had a clue, she'd fire Louis Freeh, publish PGP and
John> CryptoMozilla on the DoJ web site, prevent crimes instead of fighting
John> crimes, and advocate civil rights instead of destroying civil rights.


Ever taken a look for pgp.2.6.x, Kerberos, SSH or other "controlled
software" available for anonymous FTP from .GOV and .MIL systems?  A
few minutes with your favorite search engine is quite enlightening :-)

If only there was some way to use this as evidence in any one of the
ongoing crypto court cases...

...without nailing the poor sysadmins at those sites that are doing
their best to provide a safe, secure computing environment for their
users in spite of current brain-dead US regulations.

--tep

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Dan Geer]

> Secrecy is more useful to the weak than to the strong.

Governments everywhere hate privacy because the
efficiency of regulation is proportional to the
perfection of its surveillance.

Quoting the ever-prescient Phil Agre,

  The global integration of the economy is ... commonly held to
  decentralize political power by preventing governments from
  taking actions that can be reversed through cross-border
  arbitrage. But political power is becoming centralized in equally
  important ways: the power of national governments is not so much
  disappearing as shifting to a haphazard collection of
  undemocratic and nontransparent global treaty organizations, and
  the power to influence these organizations is likewise
  concentrating in the ever-fewer global firms.  These observations
  are not pleasant or fashionable, but they are nonetheless true.

I submit that the mergers and acquisitions wave amongst
governments themselves (EU, NAFTA, China Inc) makes
governments everywhere a/the common enemy.  Little
different than the middle ages where distant lands
with other customs may as well have not existed, and
the Church and the State were one and the same.

If we lose crypto, we must already have guns laid by.

--dan

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Marcus J. Ranum]

I've thought for some time that it's time to just solve the
problem.  All we need is a couple hundred million bucks.
Given that Ross Perot was able to make a credible run for
President on a hundred million dollars, it should be perfectly
feasible to find someone who is electable, marketable, has a
skeleton in his closet, and who will sign an executive order
once elected.

mjr.
--
Marcus J. Ranum, CEO, Network Flight Recorder, Inc.
work - http://www.nfr.net
home - http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Thomas Roessler]

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.

RE: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Lucky Green]

Of course the German government will submit to US demands. Understand that
at present, crypto isn't an immediate thread to USG's interests, despite the
claims to the contrary by both crypto advocates and the government.

The US and its allies have made certain that virtually every piece of
mass-market infrastructure has a tappable section built in. Do a search on
"crypto" at the ETSI standards documents homepage and you'll realize just
how severely the communication infrastructure has been corrupted. Other
examples abound.

At present, the crypto strategy of the USG centers on a lot of persuasion
(with limited success), expert navigation of the political process (with
significantly better success, see the rubber-stamping of Wassenaar by
virtually all European delegates), and comparatively little open
intimidation.

As crypto becomes more of a real-life problem to information gathering, the
US and other governments starting to clue in as to what crypto means to
their very existence will lead to the deployment of bigger guns. It may take
a decade or more, but the governments will succeed in outlawing the use of
strong crypto in mass market products that don't provide tappable
communication link segments. Most of you probably know the following, but
just in case somebody doesn't, tappable segments include all communications
involving at least one heavily-regulated party.

If one was to doubt that the German government will become a stalwart
supporter of domestic crypto controls, just imaging what will happen once
the US representative shows the German Economics Minister the video tape of
the Minister and the 6 year old. Oh, you didn't know about the Economics
Minister butt-fucking a 6 year old boy while the boy was forced to suck off
the Chancellor? Well, chances are neither do the Minister or the Chancellor,
but both most definitely know what will happen once that tape hits the
media. They also know that nobody but a few extremists would ever believe
that somebody faked the tape. Consequently, the German government will lick
the boot that kicked them. When it comes down to pure survival, there are no
rules.

The truth is, which is what Cypherpunks had been about since the beginning,
that widespread use of strong crypto is fundamentally incompatible with
majority rule, the operations of modern democracies, and the long-term
requirements of maintaining a nation state.

Either strong crypto has to go or the above forms of government have to go.
There are no alternatives. I know that, most old-timers in the field know
that, and perhaps most importantly, the more forward-looking governments
know that. Case in point, the US government is painfully aware of that fact.
Which is why it has been pushing so hard to implement CALEA and GAK. Ideally
on a global basis. In the medium term, which most likely includes the
lifetime of the readers of this post, the above mentioned facts will cause
strong crypto to not become widely deployed for general purpose end-to-end
encryption.

[Before a reader replies with an argument based on a claim that strong
crypto is in the process of becoming ubiquitous, please take a look at your
phone. Does it perform 3DES encryption? Do the phones of the majority of
people you call perform 3DES encryption? Alternatively, you could take a
look your email client. Does it support strong crypto? Great! Now what
percentage of emails you send *and receive* each day use strong crypto? If
your answer is 95% or higher, you might have a point, if it wasn't for the
fact that the Minister hasn't been shown the video tape just yet].

> They will not. Especially the ministry of economy is well aware that
> the US spies on the german industry, that strong crypto is the only
> protection against it, and that an open-source development model for
> security infrastructure is the only one providing a high enough
> confidence in the security of a product (and providing a
> Wassenaar-loophole though the public domain exemption on it's way,
> which they also are very aware of).
>
> Andreas
>
> --
> "We show that all proposed quantum bit commitment schemes are
> insecure because
> the sender, Alice, can almost always cheat successfully by using an
> Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen type of attack and delaying her
> measurement until she
> opens her commitment." ( http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9603004 )
>
>

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[James A. Donald]

--
At 05:52 PM 7/28/99 -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
> Why do other countries' governments work so much better on this
> issue than our own goverment? 

The US has a bigger spy apparatus, one created and perfected in
struggle with the Soviet Union which at one time had an even larger
and more powerful spy apparatus.  Thus the US government can spy on
Swiss a lot better than the Swiss government can spy on Americans.
Secrecy is more useful to the weak than to the strong.  Indeed the US
government can probably spy on the Swiss a lot better than the Swiss
government can spy on the Swiss 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 bT/ujRQ/NM6YXq9HnVSDd55pFvld6GCr5jFNvdZx
 4IHA6/iHFW0Ci5N1mn38xq9TctHM1cmA/lFmCcAMc

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[John Gilmore]

> >use of the Internet to distribute encryption products 
> >will render Wassenaar's controls immaterial."
> 
> The bitch is getting a clue. :)

No, that's not it.

  *  Wassenaar was never intended to control civilian crypto.
  *  Wassenaar never did control civilian crypto.
  *  Therefore nothing "rendered wassenaar's controls immaterial",
 since they didn't exist in the first place.  (see footnote*)
  *  However, the US is attempting to deliberately and cynically 
 use that weapons control regime to control citizens worldwide
 who are exercising their civil rights. 
  *  Which lends further credence to the idea that 'the bitch' is
 a traitor to her own country's Constitution as well as a
 significant threat to the human rights of everyone on earth.

If Ms. Reno had a clue, she'd fire Louis Freeh, publish PGP and
CryptoMozilla on the DoJ web site, prevent crimes instead of fighting
crimes, and advocate civil rights instead of destroying civil rights.

Every other country that has seriously studied the crypto issue has
come to this conclusion, unless it already treated its citizens like
dirt, or its heart was in a storage locker owned by the US Government.

Why do other countries' governments work so much better on this issue
than our own goverment?  Does it have anything to do with a massive
secret agency, unaccountable to the public, whose ox is being gored?
Can you spell "corruption", kiddies?

John

* 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.

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Phil Karn]

>I recognize that this issue is controversial, unless we address 
>this situation, use of the Internet to distribute encryption products 
>will render Wassenaar's controls immaterial."

Gee, I thought Reinsch said it didn't matter that encryption software
was distributed on the Internet because nobody will trust anything
they download off the Internet... :-)

Trying to debate these people rationally is like trying to nail Jello
to a wall.

Phil

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Andreas Bogk]

Eugene Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>  > Nations do not control distribution of intangible items. While 
>  > I recognize that this issue is controversial, unless we address 
>  > this situation, use of the Internet to distribute encryption products 
>  > will render Wassenaar's controls immaterial."
> 
> I just love this sentence. So, let's create unenforcible legislation,
> and then try to pave over all the world in the attempt to make reality
> comply. Name's Janet Reno, huh? 
> 
> What's worse, the gullible Germans will probably heel.

They will not. Especially the ministry of economy is well aware that
the US spies on the german industry, that strong crypto is the only
protection against it, and that an open-source development model for
security infrastructure is the only one providing a high enough
confidence in the security of a product (and providing a
Wassenaar-loophole though the public domain exemption on it's way,
which they also are very aware of).

Andreas

-- 
"We show that all proposed quantum bit commitment schemes are insecure because
the sender, Alice, can almost always cheat successfully by using an
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen type of attack and delaying her measurement until she
opens her commitment." ( http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9603004 )

US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Eugene Leitl]

John Young writes:

 > Nations do not control distribution of intangible items. While 
 > I recognize that this issue is controversial, unless we address 
 > this situation, use of the Internet to distribute encryption products 
 > will render Wassenaar's controls immaterial."

I just love this sentence. So, let's create unenforcible legislation,
and then try to pave over all the world in the attempt to make reality
comply. Name's Janet Reno, huh? 

What's worse, the gullible Germans will probably heel.

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[Dan Geer]

[Forwarded because no one has brought up this notion in a while. My
problem with it is that most people don't seem to like the 2nd
amendment any more so this can hardly help to popularize the cause. My
feeling is that the 4th and 5th amendments have more potential
protection in them. --Perry]

John, et al.,

In a moment of logic, as if that mattered,

WHEREAS
   By the declaration of the state, cryptographic capacity is a weapon, and
WHEREAS
   By the facts of use, cryptographic capacity is a personal weapon, and
WHEREAS
   The (US) Second Amendment denies the (US) federal government the
   authority to restrict personal weapons,
THEREFORE
   The right to bear crypto is a (US) constitutional right.

Of course, logic has nothing to do with it because the very
definition of politics is the art of making decisions based
on the manipulation of emotion, but I am, whether by choice
or by genotype, a man of logic and not of emotion, though I
am pissed off...

--dan

Re: US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[William H. Geiger III]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/27/99 
   at 09:17 PM, John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>use of the Internet to distribute encryption products 
>will render Wassenaar's controls immaterial."

The bitch is getting a clue. :)

-- 
---
William H. Geiger III  http://www.openpgp.net
Geiger ConsultingCooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html
Talk About PGP on IRC EFNet Channel: #pgp Nick: whgiii

Hi Jeff!! :)
---

US Urges Ban of Internet Crypto

[John Young]

The Austrian journal Telepolis today published a letter from
Janet Reno to the German Justice Minister urging a ban
of crypto products on the Internet. We've made a translation
of the report which includes Reno's letter:

   http://jya.com/reno-ban.htm

Here's an excerpt of Reno's letter:

"Much work remains to be done. In particular, I believe we must 
soon address the risks posed by electronic distribution of 
encryption software. Although the Wassenaar Nations have 
now reached agreement to control the distribution of mass 
market encryption software of certain cryptographic strength, 
some Wassenaar Nations continue not to control encryption 
software that is distributed over the Internet, either because 
the software is in the "public domain" or because those 
Nations do not control distribution of intangible items. While 
I recognize that this issue is controversial, unless we address 
this situation, use of the Internet to distribute encryption products 
will render Wassenaar's controls immaterial."