1997-07-09 - More on crypto from Bonn

Header Data

From: Donald Weightman <dweightman@Radix.Net>
To: cryptography@c2.net
Message Hash: ff33cf69e1240a23248c71293023c90dbe235195db0a26613bdb3ba21d4462f2
Message ID: <3.0.16.19970709093445.23d7be9e@pop.radix.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-09 13:54:00 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 21:54:00 +0800

Raw message

From: Donald Weightman <dweightman@Radix.Net>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 21:54:00 +0800
To: cryptography@c2.net
Subject: More on crypto from Bonn
Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970709093445.23d7be9e@pop.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Another story in today's FINANCIAL TIMES

        http://www.FT.com

describes a "clash" between USCommerce Sec'y Daley and German economic
minister Rexrodt on strong crypto. Because the speakers' choices of words
are interesting, I quote from the FT article by Ralph Atkins:

                        On coding technology, however, Mr Daley insisted,
"there are certain
                   legitimate areas where governments have to be involved".
Encryption
                   should be used to protect credit card numbers or
detailed contracts from
                   being read. But, he went on: "We must also make sure
national security is
                   safeguarded by applying those rules sensibly, so that
potential terrorists or
                   other sophisticated criminals cannot hide their work."

                   Mr Rexrodt hinted the European ministers regarded US
policy on
                   exporting encryption technology as discriminatory.

                   He backed "strong" encryption procedures, which he said
were "offering
                   users the only protection that they have, the only
certainty, that their data is
                   not going to be divulged or misused on open networks".

                   Mr Rexrodt was backed by Mr Ron Sommer, chairman of
Deutsche
                   Telekom, Europe's largest telecommunications group, who
said: "Anyone
                   who uses the point of public security as an argument in
this [encryption]
                   issue has not realised or acknowledged that any such
legal requirements
                   stand in the way of the further spread of electronic
commerce." 

Questions for the reader:

        What's a "potential" terrorist? (Is the occasional apparent c'punx
paranoia justified?)
        
        How is the US export policy discriminatory?

        Why is DT coming out on this issue? Who are their strategic
partners for ecommerce among US telecomms? (I'll have to ask around about
that ...) 


cheers



.........................................
Donald Weightman
dweightman@radix.net






Thread