Declan McCullagh writes:
TIS supports export controls on encryption products. My article: http://www.well.com/user/declan/pubs/cwd.shadow.cryptocrats.0298.txt
Two problems here. First, you are using the present tense in saying that TIS "supports" export controls, but your article is from nine months ago. There have been many changes since then, including loosening of the crypto export rules, the acquisition of TIS by Network Associates, and a recent statement that TIS has backed off from its leadership role in advocating key recovery. What is TIS's current policy? It certainly sounds like it is changing. You should find out before claiming to know what it is. Second, even in the context of last February, what you wrote is:
Some of the firms selected also endorse restrictions. Trusted Information Systems recently circulated a policy paper calling for "sensible" legislation to "make the export of 56-bit current interim DES controls permanent and permit the export of stronger encryption when it is combined with a key recovery system." (Which, coincidentally, TIS is happy to sell you...)
At the time, this would have represented a LIBERALIZATION of export laws. 56 bit exports were only allowed in the context of a promise to add key recovery even for 56 bit keys. The statement you have quoted calls for allowing 56 bit key export permanently, and only requiring key recovery for stronger encryption. True, it was not a call for full elimination of restrictions, but it was a step in the right direction. You are falling into the tiresome pattern of extremists who claim that moderates are lackeys for the other side. It's like an anti-abortion fanatic who says that those who oppose murdering abortion doctors are baby killers. Try reporting the facts instead of altering them to fit your biased views.