
Dale Thorn wrote:
Peter Hendrickson wrote:
At 2:17 PM 11/9/1996, Mark M. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Benjamin Grosman wrote:
I have absolutely no idea: this is a very interesting problem. Not for just compression and encryption differention legally, but also, well, ANY other data form. If one defines a new format for saving data (i.e a new image format), and then exports this technology from the USA, is this exportation of munitions due to it's unknown qualities? Or what?
I can't define encryption, but I know it when I see it.
They way it will be forbidden is by outlawing the execution of the algorithms. The algorithms (the secure ones anyway) are well defined as is executing them. The legal system has dealt with greater ambiguities than this. An analogy to the drug laws might be useful. We don't outlaw all drugs that cause you to have weird visions and to act strangely. That would be hard to define and would cover a number of legal drugs. Instead, the specific chemicals are forbidden as they are discovered.
I can see how the chemical/drug thing works, and I can see how they can easily control Public Key (PGP) encryption, but if you are suggesting that they can effectively eradicate private key encryption, that would seem to be an impossibility.
I don't think that an alert legisator will have any problems writing laws that cover whatever uses of cryptography they want to outlaw. (Finding an alert legislator might be more of a problem...) Consider this: outlawing an algorithm is very similar to protecting it's use as intellectual property - which is what the Patent system in the US and most other countries is designed to do. The description of "illegal" algorithms could be lifted directly from patents (both current AND expired, or if you're sufficiently paranoid, even from "refused" or ungranted applications) which apply to cryptography. Imagine the creation of a branch of your favorite Government, let's call it "Big Brother," whose job is to monitor patent applications worldwide for new crypto techniques solely for the purpose of branding them contraband. Not so different from some of the work the US FDA does. Note that the market lock that PKP/RSA has on public key encryption in the US is based on exactly this sort of algorithm protection, and if it's good enough to reign in unbridled capitolism, it'll be good enough for the Justice Department to litigate on. In effect, since PKP holds all the patents on public key in the US, nobody else can use these techniques without paying PKP or their licencees. Outlawing just those techniques which are embodied in the PKP patents would be sufficient to outlaw all public key encryption. Note that issues like "is the patent valid" usually hinge on whether the authors of the patent were indeed the originators of the idea. In the case of outlawing the algorithms, it doesn't matter if the patent author was the originator or not, or even if the patent is valid, still current, or was intercepted when it was applied for and diverted to "Big Brother" instead of being granted.