Public vs. Private Munitions
Here's how I understand it: The U.S. Government, concerned only with making America a safer place for us taxpayers to live in, wants to regulate domestic encryption in order to have access to the content of all transmissions. Their theory is that any cryptosystem that is stronger than their cryptanalysis systems can be used in illegal transmissions and should be considered munitions. Theoretically, the government should only be have the resources to control commercially-available, public encryption systems. Who is to stop anyone from designing their own cryptosystem for personal use? If the government intercepted a transmission from this private cryptosystem, and could not decrypt it, would they assume that it must be considered munitions? Similarly, anyone could send uniformly-formatted random garble that could also be considered munitions, or at least waste the governments processing time. Why are we so worried about government regulation? Can't we just devise our own cryptosystems and just don't sell them or make them publicly available? vagab0nd@sd.cybernex.net http://ww2.sd.cybernex.net/~vagab0nd/index.html Visit web page for public key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Erle Greer wrote:
Here's how I understand it: The U.S. Government, concerned only with making America a safer place for us taxpayers to live in, wants to regulate domestic encryption in order to have access to the content of all transmissions. Their theory is that any cryptosystem that is stronger than their cryptanalysis systems can be used in illegal transmissions and should be considered munitions. Theoretically, the government should only be have the resources to control commercially-available, public encryption systems. Who is to stop anyone from designing their own cryptosystem for personal use? If the government intercepted a transmission from this private cryptosystem, and could not decrypt it, would they assume that it must be considered munitions? Similarly, anyone could send uniformly-formatted random garble that could also be considered munitions, or at least waste the governments processing time. Why are we so worried about government regulation? Can't we just devise our own cryptosystems and just don't sell them or make them publicly available?
If encryption is regulated and outlawed, then Joe Sixpack won't have access to any none Government Approved encryption algorithms. I may still have access to strong crypto, but if it isn't widespread, I won't be able to use it very effectively. As to your question about whether random data would be outlawed, it certainly wouldn't surprise me. Of course, one could always apply for permission to transmit random data that is not used to transmit encrypted information from the government. - -- Mark PGP encrypted mail prefered Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348 http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMfq1BbZc+sv5siulAQE8pQP/YtLpV65vtOEDhCO7DcEiOqiNEc6Y/xy8 gyN80IOH+lpKX72nZF8bK+iQUj0ho4MtyPIFEoCorO72FP0gyMDPBMgi7aBcvchS p25TNlUsTMvCxbbrPuZ7plZNMEfrZz7vqUpOd2IbFd5mIBg0lRqWtegLeIOGV410 uguC7XNsl6I= =P0ky -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hrm... that should foster communication. So lemme see if I understand your point... everyone in the U.S needs to devise their own cryptosystem, and then use it to communicate securely. To who? Since I can't publish my system for fear the government will find it out and then restrict it, noone else will know about it. I can have a good old time encrypting stuff to myself, but that's about it. And the likelihood that I'm an expert cryptographer in order to design a good system is pretty remote. On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Erle Greer wrote:
Here's how I understand it: The U.S. Government, concerned only with making America a safer place for us taxpayers to live in, wants to regulate domestic encryption in order to have access to the content of all transmissions. Their theory is that any cryptosystem that is stronger than their cryptanalysis systems can be used in illegal transmissions and should be considered munitions. Theoretically, the government should only be have the resources to control commercially-available, public encryption systems. Who is to stop anyone from designing their own cryptosystem for personal use? If the government intercepted a transmission from this private cryptosystem, and could not decrypt it, would they assume that it must be considered munitions? Similarly, anyone could send uniformly-formatted random garble that could also be considered munitions, or at least waste the governments processing time. Why are we so worried about government regulation? Can't we just devise our own cryptosystems and just don't sell them or make them publicly available?
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Jeremey Barrett Senior Software Engineer jeremey@forequest.com The ForeQuest Company http://www.forequest.com/ "less is more." -- Mies van de Rohe. Ken Thompson has an automobile which he helped design. Unlike most automobiles, it has neither speedometer, nor gas gage, nor any of the numerous idiot lights which plague the modern driver. Rather, if the driver makes any mistake, a giant "?" lights up in the center of the dashboard. "The experienced driver", he says, "will usually know what's wrong." -- 'fortune` output -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMfufny/fy+vkqMxNAQEU5AQAuRmv5F2zTegRuwaQ+BL/nRkuR2oGHJKZ i5y1M8DHH1SX4dM0idxV3VCqQuuEXqhjO2Q6HSKp+5H3UtDvQMihOD78WE9w67mj ogsMFFHgmh19W79Z/Plv/G4VhDlBcx4rlYeTGaBGK7mRc6YV/qsQ1U4hQmdnyOmw 1L6EVE8wZYc= =N4Dh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (3)
-
Erle Greer -
Jeremey Barrett -
Mark M.