From: ""L. Detweiler"" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 16:34:44 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Encrypted data across international lines
Message-ID: <9307212331.AA04712@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



 From: gdale@apple.com (Geoff Dale)
>Does anybody have pointers to the actual statutes prohibiting transmitting
>encrypted data across international boundries.
>
>I had an argument with somebody who didn't think this was illegal.

This is similar to the question `do any countries prohibit certain
kinds of cryptography' that arose after the Clipper announcement
suggested that some do.

The FCC prohibits the use of codes in amateur radio transmissions, and
violations are sufficient to revoke the license. This is enforced by
legislation. Also, various countries have rules against using
encryption in telegrams. I believe Australia has one, and also Britain.
Or maybe it was that Australia had an `official' code under which other
codes were illegal.  The question is, how are these enforced in practice?

I'd like to see a bit of information from the experts on this. What
constitutes `codes'? A friend operator told me that, unusual
statements, non sequiturs, qualified. Have any operators lost their
licenses this way? What is the enforcement like?

On a related subject, I recall the discussion here a few months ago
about `numbers stations' (or was it sci.crypt?). These are broadcast
frequencies where the announcer simply reads off long lists of numbers.
They are used for encrypted communication to clandestine operatives,
etc. Apparently most are Iron Curtain originating, from what I understand.

I saw on TV (nightly news) that there was a great deal of hullaballoo
about using the VOA (Voice of America) to send secret communications. A
director told a disk jockey to play a certain song and say that it was
for a request from `country [x]' where [x] was a very obscure locality
in Russia, and the song was unusual.  Apparently a disk jockey
complained about the practice, and a previous director was against it.
A new director was not unequivocally against the practice. There was
disagreement on whether the VOA charter allowed it (private analysts
saying emphatically no, shady slippery shifty-eyed gov't types saying
`well, ...'). If anyone else can expand on this one I'd appreciate it.