One question is whether they would also try to make it illegal to use (rather than to distribute) crypto software. On the one hand, if they don't do that, they have a problem with all the installed base of code. But the legalities of stopping people from encrypting code on their own computers, or writing crypto programs for personal use, seem a lot more questionable to me, and I don't know how much precedent there would be for that kind of restriction.
Not at all questionable. A ban on crypto would follow the current trend in regulating technology. Consider the case of Bernie S. who is in jail for possessing electronic parts that could be used for telco fraud. Any government action towards banning crypto will include possession of crypto as a crime. The "cat's out of the bag" argument is ineffective as well as the governments just don't care. They'll just say in effect: "It's illegal. Destroy it if you got it." Now it's doubtful if enforcement would make unprovoked searches and arrest people solely for possession of crypto. And it is also unlikely that DA's (except perhaps the most bored) would follow up on "My neighbor is using crypto" tips. But it is not uncommon for prosecutors to heap additional charges on criminals (alleged) such as the case in robbery: 1 count robbery, 1 count using a gun in robbery. or perhaps 1 count tax evasion, 1 count using crypto to commit tax evasion. While the former charge may end up being unproven the later often sticks.
So as I see it the main target of the ban would be distributors of software rather than end users. This would be in line with the often stated goal of the law enforcement people that their main concern is with crypto that is built in, transparent, and trivial to use, rather than hacker's crypto.
Hmmm. Hackers built the ubiquitous CryptoFS for Linux, no? And the nascent S/WAN too. I don't see a distinction between popular and subculture crypto. The two invariably mix. A program may have it's origins in the subculture but it will often meet the needs of the popular culture as well and be adopted, accepted, and so on. Consider PGP and such add-ons as Brainless-PGP, WinPGP, and the various auto PGP tools. It seems to me that banning distribution would just be too generous. What is distribution? Are time share accounts distribution? I created it but many can use it but the actual bits (well are there actual bits?) never left my single computer. But the nature of "distribution" is to move something from one person to another. Now nothing really moved but a few electrons. But multiple people did use it. Book 'em. Distribution is an archaic term here and the regulations will involve controlling what software may be run on personal computers. The stated goal is a posture designed to sound reasonable. Only time will tell if the actual goal is the regulation of computer uses as I suspect. The security establishment fears crypto. Fears loss of control. I suspect that with Clinton back in the White House (was there a choice?) we will enter a period where the Clipper chip seemed like a good idea. In comparison. Unless some fundamental changes occur to the Security, Intelligence and Law Enforcement agencies (a new acronym? SILE? Pronounced with a long E of course <g>) we will see more business as usual and some completely draconian steps taken against strong encryption. The only recourse is to take an active role now. We must go on the offensive and : 1) Deploy S/WAN 2) Write more strong ubiquitous crypto 3) Attack the SILE agencies directly by challenging their purpose, gutting their budgets, exposing their falacies (umm is that almost freudian or what), flooding international communications with strong crypto messages (content need not apply), and of course ridiculing their every effort. 4) Finding allies in the legal community and educating fence sitters, critical judges, legislators, and so on. Now is the time to act. diGriz