December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

FWD: Clinton administration will ease grip on crypto exports
by anon＠zd.com 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

This message was forwarded to you from ZDNet (http://www.zdnet.com) by anon(a)zd.com. Comment from sender: The dance of the seven regs continues..... --------------------------------------------------------------------- This article is from ZDNN (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/) Visit this page on the Web at: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,4436,2138029,00.ht… --------------------------------------------------------------------- [IMAGE] By Will Rodger, Inter@ctive Week Online September 15, 1998 5:39 PM PT The Clinton Administration is expected to relax export controls on data scrambling equipment Wednesday, preparing the ground for yet another round of debate over current encryption policy. According to Administration sources, the White House will loosen its grip on the technology in several areas central to the five-year argument over the issue. Among other things, the new policy will relax controls for sales to specific industries, including e-commerce, medicine and insurance The liberalization will fall far short of what Administration critics wanted. Even so, many crypto advocates expressed hope their position will continue to gain ground. "It's not as far along as my bill would go, but it's a significant improvement on our current policy," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., a sponsor of encryption liberalization legislation in the House and one of several key Democrats briefed on the issue on the last two days. "It will still give us something to argue about next year." [TABLE NOT SHOWN] Electronic encryption, or the process of scrambling information so that only its intended recipient can read it, is widely believed to be the sine qua non of secure commerce and personal information on an insecure Internet. To date, however, Federal policy has required stringent licensing of encryption technology that uses digital codes, or "keys," longer than 40 bits in length. Law enforcement has insisted on that restriction so that the encoding technology cannot be used to thwart surveillance techniques used in investigations. Current exceptions will expand Under an exception granted in December 1996, however, the government has allowed exports of equipment whose keys are as long as 56 bits, or roughly 64,000 times more powerful than 40-bit products. That exception was granted companies that committed to develop technologies to give law enforcement "lawful access" to messages encrypted with their products through various back doors built into them. Notably free from those restrictions have been foreign financial institutions, which in most cases have been able to buy U.S.-made encryption software of unlimited strength since last year. That exception will be broadened under the new policy, sources said. Now, insurance companies, handlers of medical records and companies that use specialized transaction software to do business over the Internet will be able to buy American encryption software after a one-time review of their purchase plans by the U.S. Commerce Department. In addition, administration sources confirmed Tuesday evening, the government will no longer require prior approval of "key recovery" agents, who hold spare keys to encoded messages for law enforcement. Some 45 nations, including Russia, China, Venezuela and Mexico, will likely be ineligible for the relief control as long as the U.S. government believes they harbor money-laundering operations, however. Finally, administration sources said, any U.S. company will be able to export powerful encryption technology to its own subsidiaries as long as it does not share the technology with non-US companies. Playing catch-up As before, public interest groups said they believe the new policy does not go far enough. Since Vice President Al Gore promised relief for medical records, e-commerce and financial institutions some two years ago, critics said the policy is more a belated catch-up than anything truly new. "It's a divide and conquer strategy," said David Banisar, policy counsel with the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "This will help a few large users, but the average consumer is out in the cold." Wednesday's announcement is only the latest step in a years-long journey from complete control to liberalization. Though the FBI and others within the national security apparatus have insisted on tight controls, information technology companies and public interest groups have fought them bitterly, insisting a flood of foreign products will soon take over a world market which was once almost exclusively America's. As foreign producers have mounted - more than 500 foreign products are now stronger than what can usually be exported from the US - that pressure has increased. Technology marches on The steady march of computer technology, too, has rendered once-secure products obsolete; the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance, unveiled a computer last June which can crack messages encrypted with 56-bit keys in hours. Until recently, the FBI had claimed such messages could be cracked only in a matter of months, if not years. Dan Scheinman, vice president for legal and government affairs at Internet hardware producer Cisco Systems Inc., said the latest proposal wasn't his company had hoped for. Even so, "Anything that provides broader relief is a step in the right direction," he said. In the administration's defense Meanwhile, the administration has its defenders. Stewart Baker, former counsel to the super-secret, encryption-controlling National Security Agency and an attorney who negotiates export agreements for industry, called on critics to give the administration more credit. "I think this is a significant walking away from an emphasis on law-enforcement access," he said. "What this says is if there's a market for security, we ought to think about liberalizing. It's a big step and it foreshadows more." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1998 ZDNet. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of ZDNet is prohibited. ZDNet and the ZDNet logo are trademarks of Ziff-Davis Inc.

1 0

Re: Voices
by AIMSX＠aol.com 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

All Creatures Great and Small - that one... =) I also read an Aasimov a while back in fifth grade - unfortunately, I can't remember even the name... I need to pick some of his books up again... One book I can remember reading since 5th grade (and every summer thereafter) is "IT" by Stephen King - one of his few really good books. I have read it 8 times since. I greatly recommend it =)

1 0

Re: Voices (fwd)
by Jim Choate 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:46:59 EDT > To: edsmith(a)IntNet.net > Subject: Re: Voices > I also read an Aasimov a while back in fifth grade - unfortunately, I can't > remember even the name... I need to pick some of his books up again... > One book I can remember reading since 5th grade (and every summer thereafter) > is "IT" by Stephen King - one of his few really good books. I have read it 8 > times since. > I greatly recommend it =) Stephen King is no horror writer, he's a pussy wanna be. If you want a really good author then check out Poppy Z. Brite. Lost Souls (read this one first) Drawing Blood Exquisite Corpse (if you've ever wondered if you were the least bit homophobic, when you finish this one you'll know) You'll either read about 2-3 pages and quit in utter refulsion and disgust or else you'll be hooked. Sombody else to try is: Grave markings Michael A. Arnzen Ann Rice? Give me a break... ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Democracy...
by Richard.Bragg＠ssa.co.uk 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

mmotyka(a)lsil.com on 16/09/98 00:48:25 Please respond to mmotyka(a)lsil.com To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com cc: Subject: Re: Democracy... >Vivek Vaidya wrote: > Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Democracy? the rights of > the individual? While you certainly have the right to practice your > religion in what ever manner you so choose demanding that everyone > else > does, or that the president of the us of ais subject to you PERSONAL > faith decisions is outragous > > Vivek Vaidya > But whoever said I'm in the US? Where did I make any such demand? However, if you believe in something to be life changing and beneficial to both the idividual and society you'll want or be compelled to "pass it on". I can't and do not wish to force any one to any point of view, that's pointless. What I wanted to illustrate is that there are absolutes, to say there are no obsolutes is in itself an absolute and so is self defeating. We must have absolutes. These are often agreed on and applied through the legal systems but they are still there. Thus, when examining the behaviour of people in power we apply rules to encompass that power ie you can go so far and no further. When we are talking about national leaders in the west that do represent a wide range of views this can become more difficult but there still must be a yard stick agreed. PS If ol' Bill claims to be a Christian then he himself is setting the yard stick against we should measure him.

2 1

A definition of EVIL.
by Edwin E. Smith 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

A LIFE-AND-DEATH ISSUE To proceed we need at least a working definition. It is a reflection of the enormous mystery of the subject that we do not have a generally accepted definition of evil. Yet in our hearts I think we all have some understanding of its nature. For the moment I can do no better than to heed my son, who, with the characteristic vision of eight-year-olds, explained simply, "Why, Daddy, evil is 'live' spelled backward." Evil is in opposition to life. It is that which opposes the life force. It has, in short, to do with killing. Specifically, it has to do with murder-namely, unnecessary killing, killing that is not required for biological survival. from "People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck, M.D.

1 0

Re: Democracy... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:27:23 -0500 > From: Jaeger <Jaeger(a)hempseed.com> > Subject: Re: Democracy... > hey, would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is > to be found in the constitution/bill of rights? absolute right and ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 1st prevents the government from regulating religion, even to the point of having the authority to define what a religion is. This includes smoking dope, raping little babies, whatever. It *IS NOT* an issue within the guidelines of the Constitution for the *federal* government, Period, end of story. Note that it does *not* prevent religions from participating in the government. They could regulate any commerce of those churches that cross state lines. The 10th says that unless the state you happen to live in regulates religion through a representative form of government via their own constitution then the practice and limits of religion are to be decided by the individual. Don't like it? Get a god damned amendment passed modifying or nullifying one or both of the above amendments. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Fwd: I don't care if this is real or not!
by Anonymous 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

You suck... Die prick, die Crack head <simpsonngan(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >Received: from 136.148.1.253 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; > > Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:55:15 PDT > >X-Originating-IP: [136.148.1.253] > >From: "Dodwell Leung" <dodwellleung(a)hotmail.com> > >To: alexccl(a)hotmail.com, z2181727(a)student.unsw.edu.au, > antonylam(a)hotmail.com, chonga(a)sbu.ac.uk, z2183890(a)student.unsw.edu.au, > lcy(a)qms.ndirect.co.uk, z2155343(a)student.unsw.edu.au, bahrid(a)hotmail.com, > daner(a)mail.mkv.mh.se, Evert.P.deVries(a)SI.shell.com, > harold.tan(a)mailexcite.com, ivanyip(a)hotmail.com, catkoo(a)hotmail.com, > jennyshek(a)hotmail.com, BKKsomporb(a)mail.nomura.com.hk, > joe621(a)netvigator.com, heyloe(a)hotmail.com, kmyk(a)hotmail.com, > kenjess(a)apanet.com.au, lawhon(a)hotmail.com, lfan(a)mail.uoknor.edu, > 95481624J(a)hkpucc.polyu.edu.hk, shukai(a)netvigator.com, > z2188635(a)student.unsw.edu.au, mattgow(a)hotmail.com, > z2192026(a)student.unsw.edu.au, z2174314(a)student.unsw.edu.au, > Steeve.Genot(a)wanadoo.fr, hsp996(a)hotmail.com, physpot(a)asiaonline.net, > pixie_tan(a)hotmail.com, pooi_lee_chow(a)hotmail.com, eeyatir(a)hotmail.com, > saralee(a)chevalier.net, patelsu(a)sbu.ac.uk, beetch(a)pacific.net.sg, > z2188232(a)student.unsw.edu.au, simpsonngan(a)hotmail.com, > yoon(a)pacific.net.sg, hamster.sol(a)lineone.net, stepcom(a)hkstar.com, > ext3366(a)yahoo.com, tinyau1(a)netvigator.com, z2193851(a)student.unsw.edu.au, > huvl(a)sbu.ac.uk, z2193612(a)student.unsw.edu.au, willmilk(a)hotmail.com, > wswinnie(a)netvigator.com, brackeye(a)hkstar.com, takleung(a)wisdom.com.hk > >Subject: I don't care if this is real or not! But forwarding is not > hard for me if I help > >Content-Type: text/plain > >Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:55:15 PDT > > > > > >>Received: from 202.184.46.2 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; > >> Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:39:48 PDT > >>X-Originating-IP: [202.184.46.2] > >>From: "san san" <seliness(a)hotmail.com> > >>To: alanling(a)usa.net, calviny(a)mol.net.my, chowpin(a)edb.gov.sg, > >chan911(a)pc.jaring.my, gary_wang(a)hotmail.com, junifer(a)pl.jaring.my, > >karren(a)deakin.edu.au, klay(a)okstate.edu, lkhoong(a)pc.jaring.my, > >mcch(a)hotmail.com, murphy_l(a)hotmail.com, simfong(a)pl.jaring.my, > >stchai(a)pl.jaring.my, mote(a)hotmail.com, tlliew(a)tm.net.my, > >wthong(a)pl.jaring.my, dodwellleung(a)hotmail.com > >>Subject: Fwd: This is serious PLEEEEEEASE PLEASE DON'T DELETE!!!!! > >>Content-Type: text/plain > >>Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:39:48 PDT > >> > >> > >>>Received: from 202.188.25.160 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; > >>> Mon, 14 Sep 1998 06:27:23 PDT > >>>X-Originating-IP: [202.188.25.160] > >>>From: "Lim Huey" <shaohuey(a)hotmail.com> > >>>To: alexlimyk(a)hotmail.com, audrey.looi(a)mailexcite.com, > >>kianwah19(a)hotmail.com, enyen(a)hotmail.com, s9812221(a)unitele.com.my, > >>rckj(a)hotmail.com, seliness(a)hotmail.com, stanchow(a)tm.net.my, > >>bhchua7(a)hotmail.com, csheng(a)rocketmail.com, yoongyow(a)hotmail.com, > >>ching20(a)hotmail.com, lphoo(a)hotmail.com, ken_thong(a)rocketmail.com, > >>twinsck(a)hotmail.com, poaysun(a)yahoo.com, mda97mk(a)sheffield.ac.uk, > >>yongqiang13(a)hotmail.com, sammy_lee_79(a)hotmail.com, > >>tungweileong(a)hotmail.com, lifesignx(a)yahoo.com, elim331(a)yahoo.com, > >>lwloh(a)hotmail.com, audrey.looi(a)mailcity.com, sokyee(a)pc.jaring.my, > >>kah_kit(a)hotmail.com, siewgar(a)hotmail.com, chiane(a)mailcity.com, > >>Vvpenguin(a)hotmail.com, pkleong(a)hotmail.com, phangf(a)hotmail.com, > >>rolandhii(a)hotmail.com, stjdanzel(a)hotmail.com, leesiehui(a)hotmail.com, > >>jeennwei(a)hotmail.com, chouyong(a)hotmail.com, ttc1979(a)yahoo.com, > >>guatyen(a)hotmail.com, chonkit(a)hotmail.com, thongyp(a)hotmail.com, > >>soonfung(a)hotmail.com, tsueyyin(a)hotmail.com, feiyy(a)hotmail.com > >>>Subject: Fwd: This is serious PLEEEEEEASE PLEASE DON'T DELETE!!!!! > >>>Content-Type: text/plain > >>>Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 06:27:23 PDT > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 04:25:43 -0700 (PDT) > >>>>From: CHEW JUNN WENG <jwchew(a)rocketmail.com> > >>>>Subject: This is serious PLEEEEEEASE PLEASE DON'T DELETE!!!!! > >>>>To: lmoonc(a)hotmail.com, pvcheo(a)essex.ac.uk, cwnsim(a)essex.ac.uk, > >>>> yoongyow(a)hotmail.com, lenelene(a)hotmail.com, gcping38(a)mailcity.com, > >>>> gthong(a)rocketmail.com, ching20(a)hotmail.com, > lcchuan(a)rocketmail.com, > >>>> moon(a)tm.net.my, shaohuey(a)hotmail.com, janelsl(a)tm.net.my, > >>>> csheng(a)rocketmail.com, hwooi(a)yahoo.com, dianacn(a)hotmail.com, > >>>> stjdanzel(a)hotmail.com, effyjungle(a)hotmail.com, > >bus_tard(a)hotmail.com, > >>>> lphoo(a)hotmail.com, yakasaki(a)hotmail.com, colint79(a)hotmail.com > >>>>Cc: anniesia(a)hotmail.com, pearlng(a)hotmail.com, liangser(a)hotmail.com, > >>>> choopar(a)hotmail.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Hello, my name is David "Darren" Bucklew. I live in > >>>>Pittsburgh PA where I attend Bethel Park High School > >>>>and participate in many sports. I have severe > >>>>ostriopliosis of the liver. (My liver is extremely > >>>>inflamed). > >>>>Modern Science has yet to find a cure. Valley > >>>>Childrens hospital > >>>>> has agreed to donate 7 cents to the National > >>>>Diesese Society for every name > >>>> on this letter.Please send it around as much as you > >>>>can. > >>>>Thank you, > >>>>Darren > >>>> > >>>>PS: For those of you who dont take 5 minutes to do > >>>>this, what goes around comes around. You can help > >>>>sick people, and it costs you nothing,yet you are too > >>>>lazy to do it? You will get what you deserve. > >>>> > >>>>_________________________________________________________ > >>>>DO YOU YAHOO!? > >>>>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>______________________________________________________ > >>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > >> > >> > >>______________________________________________________ > >>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > > >______________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > == "The same thing we do every night Pinkey, try to take over the WORLD!" - The brain _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: Larry Gilbert, AOLers, and the Hyper-real flamer
by Anonymous 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Some smart people do come from aol but then again they don't say stupid stuff. Aol will always be stereo typed until it is cleansed of morons. It is a stereotype based on truth. Famous AOL saying: me too! ---AIMSX(a)aol.com wrote: > > Obviously you have a very high opinion of yourself and a low opinion of people > who use AOL. Contrary to popular belief, there are a few intelligent people > on AOL, but it looks as if you are too egotistical to realize that. > > Have you ever thought to look at your own mistakes before you publicize > everyone else's to the world? Are you just suffering from some sort of > dillusion of grandeur - thinking you are better than everyone else. Things > like this are what many wars were started over, I am so happy the internet > (hopefully) won't start a war in the real world. > > == "The same thing we do every night Pinkey, try to take over the WORLD!" - The brain _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Democracy... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:09:03 -0500 > From: Jaeger <Jaeger(a)hempseed.com> > Subject: Re: Democracy... > and the meaning is not that church > shouldn't have an effect on the state. Agreed. The state CAN support one > religion over another. If we are speaking of 'the state' as the 'federal government' then *no* it can't support any religion because it isn't authorized to address those issues under any venue, make no law means just that, make no law - whether for or against religion is irrelevant. This country is blind in respect to religion and the cornucopia of individual actions via the 9th & 10th. Now if you are speaking of 'the state' as the individual 50 states, regulated within the confines of their own 50 individual constitutions, as directed per the 10th then you are correct - provided the state constitution gives the state government the duty (governments don't have rights) to regulate religion, the fact is most don't. If there is no individual state regulation then the limitations of religion fall upon individual discretion. Whether the religion promoted going to heaven, smoking good ganja, or rapeing babies is irrelevant as to the ability of the state to engage in prior restraint - they can't. Since most local jurisdictions have laws against murder, rape, child molestation, etc. under their individual charters and representative system there is really no reason to a priori regulate such activities at any higher level than localy. It isn't the act that we should worry about, it's the consequences to others after the fact. If an act doesn't effect another person or their property directly then there is no legitimate reason to interfere with their actions. Constitutionaly the federal government should be blind to my actions as an individual unless I'm crossing a state line, work for the federal government, legal action, or have a treasury issue. > In context, the phrase simply explains that the > government can't make laws that RESTRICT religious practice or doctrinal > issues. Bullshit. There is NO way to reasonably accept this as a legitimate interpretation of the 1st & 10th. > The state CAN make laws that encourage the practice of any one > particular religion, as long as the laws do not RESTRICT the PRACTICE of > other religions. Making people uncomfortable isn't a constitutional > reason to overturn a law. No. Niether the spirit or the letter of the issue allows such sweeping generalizations. In fact it fails for the same reason that mass searches fail strict Constitutional interpretation, the Constitution directs that probable cause is required *IN EACH CASE* to be handled individualy, there is no stipulation where individual probable cause may be bypassed. Just because you do it to everyone, while you can't do it to anyone, legitimizes it. If you can't rape an individual you can't rape 10 people. The same applies to religion, the federal government can't make a law respecting a religion because it can't even define religion. Now if you can't support any religion you certainly can't support an individual religion. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

US Updates Crypto Policy
by John Young 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

http://library.whitehouse.gov/PressReleases-plain.cgi?date=0&briefing=3 THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ____________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release September 16, 1998 STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY Administration Updates Encryption Policy The Clinton Administration today announced a series of steps to update its encryption policy in a way that meets the full range of national interests: promotes electronic commerce, supports law enforcement and national security and protects privacy. These steps are a result of several months of intensive dialogue between the government and U.S. industry, the law enforcement community and privacy groups that was called for by the Vice President and supported by members of Congress. As the Vice President stated in a letter to Senator Daschle, the Administration remains committed to assuring that the nation?s law enforcement community will be able to access, under strictly defined legal procedures, the plain text of criminally related communications and stored information. The Administration intends to support FBI?s establishment of a technical support center to help build the technical capacity of law enforcement - Federal, State, and local - to stay abreast of advancing communications technology. The Administration will also strengthen its support for electronic commerce by permitting the export of strong encryption when used to protect sensitive financial, health, medical, and business proprietary information in electronic form. The updated export policy will allow U.S. companies new opportunities to sell encryption products to almost 70 percent of the world?s economy, including the European Union, the Caribbean and some Asian and South American countries. These changes in export policy were based on input from industry groups while being protective of national security and law enforcement interests. The new export guidelines will permit exports to other industries beyond financial institutions, and further streamline exports of key recovery products and other recoverable encryption products. Exports to those end users and destination countries not addressed by today?s announcement will continue to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Very strong encryption with any key length (with or without key recovery) will now be permitted for export, under license exception, to several industry sectors. For example, U.S. companies will be able to export very strong encryption for use between their headquarters and their foreign subsidiaries worldwide except the seven terrorist countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba) to protect their sensitive company proprietary information. On-line merchants in 45 countries will be able to use robust U.S. encryption products to protect their on-line electronic commerce transactions with their customers over the Internet. Insurance companies as well as the health and medical sectors in those same 46 countries will be able to purchase and use robust U.S. encryption products to secure health and insurance data among legitimate users such as hospitals, health care professionals, patients, insurers and their customers. The new guidelines also allow encryption hardware and software products with encryption strength up to 56-bit DES or equivalent to be exported without a license, after a one time technical review, to all users outside the seven terrorist countries. Currently, streamlined exports of DES products are permitted for those companies that have filed key recovery business plans. However, with the new guidelines, key recovery business plans will no longer be required. The Administration will continue to promote the development of key recovery products by easing regulatory requirements. For the more than 60 companies which have submitted plans to develop and market key recovery encryption products, the six month progress reviews will no longer be required. Once the products are ready for market, they can be exported, with any bit length -- without a license -- world-wide (except to terrorist nations) after a one-time review. Furthermore, exporters will no longer need to name or submit additional information on a key recovery agent prior to export. These requirements will be removed from the regulations. Finally, industry has identified other so-called "recoverable" products and techniques that allow for the recovery of plaintext by a system or network administrator and that can also assist law enforcement access, subject to strict procedures. The Administration will permit their export for use within most foreign commercial firms, and their wholly-owned subsidiaries, in large markets, including Western Europe, Japan and Australia, to protect their internal business proprietary communications. The Administration welcomes a continued dialogue with U.S. industry and intends to review its policy in one year to determine if additional updates may be necessary to continue a balanced approach that protects the public safety and national security, ensures privacy, enables continued technology leadership by U.S. industry and promotes electronic commerce. # # #

2 1