From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill_Stewart_HOY002_1305)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 14:01:14 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: meaningless rumor
Message-ID: <9309202028.AA03562@anchor.ho.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


Matt writes:
> [Steve writes:]
> >they may throw in charges of importing IDEA, though I doubt that they'd
> >indict just on those grounds; in an era of key escrow, they'd certainly
> >like a court to rule they had the power to exclude subversive foreign
> >crypto....
> 
> Assuming that whoevever implemented PGP did not himself import the cipher, but
> based the implementation on the EUROCRYPT '90 paper that was 'imported'
> by Springer-Verlag, I don't understand what the basis would be for such a
> charge.  Now an indictment against Springer for shipping the proceedings
> (which contained C source code for IDEA) into the US - that would be
> interesting...

If memory serves me correctly, Phil's original PGP offered DES and bass-o-matic,
and the IDEA encryption was implemented in the Europeans PGP2.0 version
(though I don't know if it was done by Phil or by Europeans, I think the latter.)
This means that the IDEA implementation was imported by person or persons unknown,
presumably including Phil and many others.  During one round of Sternlight Wars,
I proposed doing a U.S. implementation, but John Gilmore convinced me that
importing software is legal under the then-existing ITAR wording.
This could be an opportunity to test it in court.
		Bill