From: jthomas@kolanut.mitre.org (Joe Thomas)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 54f41ac2a80dd7a76a2f37cfcb7033447d9a0d8a4ab5c9323340ff64d97a4ba0
Message ID: <9301152131.AA01479@kolanut>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-01-15 21:35:21 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 13:35:21 PST
From: jthomas@kolanut.mitre.org (Joe Thomas)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 13:35:21 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: use of ripem instead of pgp
Message-ID: <9301152131.AA01479@kolanut>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
BRIAN MCBEE <opac!brian%OPAC.osl.or.gov@cs.orst.edu> writes:
>Since the only reason we are talking about RIPEM is because of
legality
>concerns about PGP, I thought I'd mention that it is (at least
theoretically)
>illegal to export RIPEM from the US, annd therefore could not be
legally used
>to correspond with persons overseas.
>I don't know if there is a legal way to do public key cryptography
between
>persons inside the US and persons outside the US.
What is illegal to export is the software implementations of strong
cryptography, not messages encrypted with them, or even detailed
specifications of how to implement compatible software. So,
theoretically, if a group in each COCOM-complying country and a group
out of the reach of COCOM each independently implemented software to
do the public-key cryptography (the U.S. group is the only one that
will have to worry about licensing PKP's patents), then trading
encrypted mail would be unquestionably legal.
It would also be a lot of wasted work and duplicated effort, and I
don't see any reason to respect the laws that make exporting or
importing this software illegal. RIPEM has no doubt escaped the U.S.
since RSADSI put it up for anonymous FTP last week, and PGP is
everywhere.
Joe
Return to January 1993
Return to “jthomas@kolanut.mitre.org (Joe Thomas)”
1993-01-15 (Fri, 15 Jan 93 13:35:21 PST) - Re: use of ripem instead of pgp - jthomas@kolanut.mitre.org (Joe Thomas)