Criminalizing crypto criticism

[Steven M. Bellovin]

In message <20010727015656.A22910 at cluebot.com>, Declan McCullagh writes:

>
>One of those -- and you can thank groups like ACM for this, if my
>legislative memory is correct -- explicitly permits encryption
>research. You can argue fairly persuasively that it's not broad
>enough, and certainly 2600 found in the DeCSS case that the judge
>wasn't convinced by their arguments, but at least it's a shield of
>sorts. See below.

It's certainly not broad enough -- it protects "encryption" research, 
and the definition of "encryption" in the law is meant to cover just 
that, not "cryptography".  And the good-faith effort to get permission 
is really an invitation to harrassment, since you don't have to 
actually get permission, merely seek it.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb