clipper and export
Is anyone else distrubed by the way that encryption export policy and the clipper chip seem to be linked {in administration policy, and in the press? The letter from Gore to Cantwell certainly indicates this. He got her to refrain from trying to liberalize export by saying that he'd look into relaxing clipper. This seems awfully insidious, for a variety of reasons. I think everyone has got to make greater efforts to seperate these two issues in the public s mind. If we need to prevent encryption export for national security reasons, as the administration alleges, then that doesn't neccesarily have any relation on whether we need to adopt key escrow too.And if key escrow is neccesary for law enforcement, as they allege, that doesn't say _anything_ about whether encryption export should be liberalized or not. Of course, scrutinizing administration policy revelas the link without too much dificulty. They want to make clipper a de facto standard, and the only way they're going to be able to accomplish this is by refusing to allow exportation of anything _but_ clipper. But the administration isn't publically giving this line of reasoning, because it makes them look bad, and shows that they are mis-using the legislation that allows them to ban exportation of encryption for their own pro-Clipper strategies. But they still manage to link the two issues, as in the "compromise" with Ms. Cantwell, without giving any good reason for the two issues to be related! I don't think we should let them get away with this. If the two issues are going to be linked like this, we the public have got to demand and explanation or rational for doing this. Why did the administration basically offer to re-think clipper _if_ Cantwell didn't try to liberalize export? And when they can't give a good answer, we the cypherpunks have got to offer our explanation. As it is, they're getting a tactical olitical freebie. They've managed to link the issues of export restrictions and clipper such that Joe Public sees how the policies are linked, _without_ giving any actual reasons for the link, because those reasons would make them look so bad.
From the beginning, it has been clear to me that the whole thing about crypto export prohibitions enhancing national security is just a smoke screen. While there may be a germ of truth to those kinds of statements,
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: | Is anyone else distrubed by the way that encryption export policy and the | clipper chip seem to be linked {in administration policy, and in the | press? | ... If we need to prevent encryption export for national security | reasons, as the administration alleges, then that doesn't neccesarily | have any relation on whether we need to adopt key escrow too. the _real_ reason for propping export controls up when they are no longer effective, and no longer make sense, is to fragment the worldwide market and give weakened state-sponsored encryption a window of opportunity to become a standard. As such, I'm not upset at how the administration finally is publicly acknowledging their abuse of export control law for anti-democratic ends. I'm just upset at their abuse, and consider it highly unethical, even criminal. It's ironic that those who are engaging in these unethical, anti- democratic acts are also asking us to trust them with access to our most private conversations... Rich -- Loudyellnet: Richard Johnson | Sneakernet: ECNT1-6, CB 429, CU Boulder Phonenet: +1.303.492.0590 | Internet: Richard.Johnson@Colorado.EDU RIPEM and PGP public keys available by server, finger or request Speaker to avalanche dragons. Do you really think they listen?
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Is anyone else distrubed by the way that encryption export policy and the clipper chip seem to be linked {in administration policy, and in the press?
Well, we helped made this connection happen! We, in the sense of the overall letter-writing campaign...all those exhortations for us to please get the Cantwell Bill moved along, those daily updates, etc. EFF, CPSR, EPIC, and messages here on Cypherpunks and in other fora (or forums).
The letter from Gore to Cantwell certainly indicates this. He got her to refrain from trying to liberalize export by saying that he'd look into relaxing clipper. This seems awfully insidious, for a variety of reasons. I think everyone
To be expected, given the nature of the lobbying effort.
I don't think we should let them get away with this. If the two issues are going to be linked like this, we the public have got to demand and explanation or rational for doing this. Why did the administration
I agree with Jonathan's sentiments, though I get nervous hearing buzzwords like "demand" and "let them get away with this." The will do what states always do, accomodate interests. Maria Cantwell has, partly by our actions, become a "player" in this high-stakes game. Her motivations and goals may or may not agree with some of ours, and certainly they collide with some views (e.g., I doubt she's an anarchist). Though I sent the obligatory "I oppose Clipper" and "I support the Cantwell Bill" messages, I think we as Cypherpunks have a more powerful hand to play than getting involved too deeply in the Washington lobbying that's obviously going on here. I reject key escrow, and I don't worry overmuch about export of crypto or what it does to the competitiveness of Novell and Microsoft. (By this I mean that end-to-end encryption is usually a big win over product-integrated, officially-sanctioned crypto....and no export laws will stop powerful, unofficially-sanctioned end-to-end crypto from being used.) Sure, support open export. But don't make it the cause celebre of Cypherpunks, or the outcome that Jonathan bemoans will be inevitable. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Tim May: | I reject key escrow, and I don't worry overmuch about export of crypto | or what it does to the competitiveness of Novell and Microsoft. (By | this I mean that end-to-end encryption is usually a big win over | product-integrated, officially-sanctioned crypto....and no export laws | will stop powerful, unofficially-sanctioned end-to-end crypto from | being used.) The benifit to product integrated crypto is that if Microsoft puts RSA into Chicago, there are suddently 60 mil. RSA users. OTOH, if Microsoft puts A5 into Chicago, there are suddenly zillions of A5 users. There is a benefit to having big companies like IBM, HP, or Sun provide strong crypto, and that is it makes it look more respectable to the large corporation. Adam -- Adam Shostack adam@bwh.harvard.edu Politics. From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small, annoying bloodsucker.
participants (4)
-
Adam Shostack -
Jonathan Rochkind -
Richard Johnson -
tcmay＠netcom.com