This relates to an issue I've wanted to discuss with "Cypherpunks" for several years. Over the years, I've seen several commentators (including Timothy May) appear suprised when discussing the US's encryption export policies. The basic argument is that, if good encryption is available overseas or easily downloadable, it doesn't make sense to make export of it illegal. On the surface this would seem a sensible argument. ANd, it would seem a purely beaureaucratic (I'm sure I spelled that wrong) error. But I am wondering if Cypherpunks have mentioned the 'obvious'. The government knows exactly what it's doing. It wants to discourage the use of encryption by any means necessary, because of sheer numbers. Basically, the more messages that are encypted, the more hardware (and therefore $$$) will be needed to decrypt them. Therefore, the only way they can stay ahead of the game is to keep the numbers as low as possible, so they can continue to "outspend" the problem. This is, from their perspective, a perfectly reasonable approach to decrypting large numbers of messages, a small fraction of which may contain "interesting" information. Is the above statement a) wrong, b) obvious c) mentioned previously on the cypherpunks boards, or d)"hey! We never thought of that"
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 02:28:26AM -0000, anonimo arancio wrote: [..]
But I am wondering if Cypherpunks have mentioned the 'obvious'.
The government knows exactly what it's doing. It wants to discourage the use of encryption by any means necessary, because of sheer numbers. Basically, the more messages that are encypted, the more hardware (and therefore $$$) will be needed to decrypt them. Therefore, the only way they can stay ahead of the game is to keep the numbers as low as possible, so they can continue to "outspend" the problem. This is, from their perspective, a perfectly reasonable approach to decrypting large numbers of messages, a small fraction of which may contain "interesting" information.
Is the above statement a) wrong, b) obvious c) mentioned previously on the cypherpunks boards, or d)"hey! We never thought of that"
B and C, extensively. The US Government has pretty much given up on restricting crypto exports. There is just enough of a vestigial restriction there to maintain the illusion that the government has a right to control crypto exports. If there was anything more, it would be challenged in court and most likely get thrown out. The government backed off on previous challenges (Bernstein, Zimmerman) to avoid that. Eric
hi,
The government knows exactly what it's doing. It wants to discourage the use of encryption by any means necessary, because of sheer numbers.
Does n't govt intervension always increase the numbers?
Basically, the more messages that are encypted, the more hardware (and therefore $$$) will be needed to decrypt them. Therefore, the only way they can stay ahead of the game is to keep the numbers as low as possible, so they can continue to "outspend" the problem.
Why don't we have encrypted spams over the internet rather than plain text spam ?Thats one way we can all benefit frm spam.
The US Government has pretty much given up on restricting crypto exports.
Why did that happen? Regards Sarath. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
participants (3)
-
anonimo arancio
-
Eric Murray
-
Sarad AV