I think the upshot of it is that they just read the bill (and the surrounding issues) incorrectly. I read the editorial and said to myself, "they aren't reading the same bill the rest of us are reading". -Shabbir J. Safdar * Online Representative * Voters Telecomm. Watch (VTW) http://www.vtw.org/ * Defending Your Rights In Cyberspace Thaddeus J. Beier writes:
Somebody posted this editorial this morning, that includes the following passage:
The Washington Post, March 11, 1996, p. A18.
Security and Software [Editorial] ...
Legislation introduced this month in both the House and the Senate would ease the export restrictions while attempting to meet some of the government's security concerns. Code makers would deposit a "spare key" to any exported encryption software with a trusted third-party agency...
Now, I thought that the bills did no such thing. How could The Washington Post get this so wrong?
As I understand it, the bills do not in any way tie export to key escrow. They mention key escrow only to the extent that they specify that it is illegal to disclose the keys.
Why would the paper get this cockeyed? Is it just a screwup, or are they pushing for a change?
thad -- Thaddeus Beier thad@hammerhead.com Technology Development 408) 286-3376 Hammerhead Productions http://www.got.net/~thad