This kind of testimony shows exactly why we (individual citizens) can't trust corporations to guard our interests in the crypto arena: At 12:25 PM 6/19/96 -0700, se7en wrote:
Joel Lisker, MasterCard International senior vice president for security and risk management, testified in support of the "Promotion of Commerce On-Line an the Digital Era Act" bill.
But he urged that the legislation be amended to address security concerns arising from the resale and reexportation of encryption technology.
[..]
But Mr. Lisker urged that the bill be amended to increase the penalties for the rexportation and resale of this technology to questionable buyers, including criminals. "Modernizing the federal regulatory approach to encryption technology must be accomplished without weakening the ability of law enforcement agencies to pursue criminal activity," he testified.
Look at this closely, and Mastercard's position, and you'll notice that Lisker has no obvious professional interest in encouraging the _increasing_ of penalities for the "reexportation and resale of this technology to questionable buyers, including criminals." (In a contest between Mastercard armed with good encryption, and criminals armed with similar tools, Mastercard will win, because winning simply involves keeping the crooks away from its money.) Lisker is also presumably smart enough to know that few people are going to go into an "Encryption Store" and say, "I'm a criminal! Could I buy your best encryption, please?" Yet, despite no obvious reason for Lisker's interest, he's pushing the "no crypto to bad guys" buttons, so he's obviously sucking up to the politicians in an area he has no reason to. It sounds to me like a deal is being struck, and I'm certain the public will be on the short end of that deal. Why can these thugs just accept the fact that crypto will get into the hands of people that governments don't want it to? Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com