old encryption paper

[proclus at gnu-darwin.org]

On 22 Jul, Declan McCullagh wrote:
 Well, no. This kind of commentary made folks on mailing lists like
> these feel warm and fuzzy and made some other tech types realize what
> was at stake. But Sen. Judd Gregg's proposal failed because of lack of
> support from his colleagues and opposition from well-connected
> industry lobbyists, 

What kind of argument do you think was used by the senator's colleagues
and industry lobbyists in order to defeat the proposal?

> not people writing about "GNU-Darwin" (probably
> not one congresscritter knows what that means anyway, or cares).

Clearly, if you had read the paper, then you would know that it is
about encryption and authentication, and only tangentially GNU-Darwin,
which is mentioned for credibility and example purposes.  One also
wonders if your assessment of the Washington events surrounding the
post-911 encryption proposals is complete or accurate.  It appears to me
that the White House was unwilling to expend political capital on the
authentication schemes of the profiteers, which were contrary to the
national security interests.  Presumably the congress was swayed by
similar arguments in the days following the 911 attacks.  

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

> -Declan

-- 
Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBOULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O
M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++
h--- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]