I believe there is nothing really good, really evil, or even really novel about the Cisco et al proposal. That makes it hard for a technical community like this one to evaluate it. The controversy should not be around the technology, but around the spin-doctoring. It is both wrong and dangerous to portray this as a step forward in resolving the crypto export debate. It is comparable to the Lotus Notes 64/40 encryption scheme or the Microsoft/Netscape and later Lotus scheme for making strong cryptography available between exportable browsers and international banks. These may be significant to some customers and to some vendors, but they are not steps toward resolving the controversy. They are more likely to extend the controversy, since they decrease the urgency of the debate for some of the players. There is no reason to believe this controversy will be settled anytime soon. The battle continues with no plausible resolution because both sides believe they will win if they hold out long enough. Civil Libertarians believe that the public will not stand for the sorts of draconian controls that will be necessary to enable universal snooping and that the courts will rule such controls unconstitutional. The argument against this view is that the American people are sheep and the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it does and have you looked at the makeup of the Supreme Court lately? Big Brother thinks he will win because he has the pictures. And because he always does. So think of these confusing technological tweaks as sending food aid to the starving peasants in the war zone. It might extend the war by masking some of its most painful effects, and hence might in the long run be a bad thing. But the effect is ambiguous at worst, and it's difficult to argue with the humanitarian groups that want to do it. I was involved with choosing the wording of the Lotus press release around 64/40. It was a constant effort to restrain the enthusiasm of the marketeers who wanted to talk about how wonderful it was. I think we overall did a good job of making it clear that this was not a great thing, and that we hoped it would not be a long term thing. It was a small improvement for a limited set of customers while we continued the war. If you read Cisco's publications, they have been fairly restrained in their enthusiasm. But some of their partners and some of the press coverage has gotten completely out of hand. The most offensive testimonial is from Novell: "This solution represents a real step forward for U.S. encryption policy," said Eric Schmidt, CEO of Novell. "At last, we have a market solution that meets the needs of consumers, corporations, law enforcement and national security." This seems like a case where we need to shoot the messenger. --Charlie Kaufman