Electronic locksmiths are watching you (Belgium's ban on PGP)

[jim bell]

At 06:02 PM 3/29/96 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>
>This seems like an interesting glimpse into the future of crypto banning
>around the world. France's ban on unapproved crypto has been
>well-publicized, but I hadn't heard until this message that Belgium has
>joined in.
>
>The reference to Belgium's wiretap law and "But little-known sections of
>the law state that  all cryptograhic systems aimed at protecting privacy
>must not block these wiretaps" suggests that we ought to look _very_
>closely at our own Wiretap Act (aka Digital Telephony) for similar
>language.

What I'm surprised about is that I would be criticized for being suspicious 
(as Declan McCullagh was, below) for doubting the motivations of people who 
propose crypto bills:

At 08:35 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:
>Two observations:
>
>* Jim Bell would be unduly suspicious if _anyone_ introduced a crypto
>bill in Congress. I'm not surprised that here on conspiracypunks someone
>would be raising alarums without knowing what they're talking about.


I think it's obvious that governments around the world have a very poor 
record of responding "well" to encryption with any kind of acceptable 
legislation.  Arguably, laws should exist for the benefit of the public, but 
what's happening is that governments are using their authority to try to 
restrain the political consequences of technical developments.  I see no 
benefit to the public in laws against encryption, and certainly no net benefit.

We should be particularly suspicious of any hint of a pan-European ban or 
control of encryption, because that is exactly the kind of development that 
could usher in a secretly-negotiated treaty that might be argued to be 
binding on the public.

Jim Bell
jimbell at pacifier.com