At 3:02 7/31/96, Timothy C. May wrote:
This point has been raised by us many times. And, to be fair, this point is not lost on the NSA/Freeh/Denning/Gorelick crowd, I am sure. That is, they would not countenance the importation into the U.S. of "Iraq-GAKked" and "China-GAKked" programs, for example.
So, what's the deal? The resolution of this quandary almost certainly lies in an "international agreement," along the lines of the various key escrow meetings which have been held (Karlsruhe in '93, Washington in '94, etc.). A "New World Order" solution, with complicated reciprocal agreements about whom the trusted key authorities might be, how nations could gain access, etc. (These relationships are too complicated for my brain to handle...how, for example, would one come to an agreement with Libya? What about Cuba, given that many of our nominal allies trade freely with Cuba and chafe when we try to get them to join our boycotts?)
I don't see a global agreement on GAK happening anytime soon. But that doesn't mean that a less ambitious agreement can't be reached. Perhaps it will come out of OECD, perhaps it will be limited to G-7. We will see an agreement on GAK amongst the major players, with the exception of Japan. After all, the players are faced with the same dilemma: how to best control the behavior of their citizens. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.