From: smb@research.att.com
To: Phil Karn <karn@unix.ka9q.ampr.org>
Message Hash: 2cbdabf0d80096e1ceef291699289ae770da3daf2c4a55a5effe9f2368e4bd48
Message ID: <9403111829.AA20371@toad.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-11 18:30:00 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 11 Mar 94 10:30:00 PST
From: smb@research.att.com
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 94 10:30:00 PST
To: Phil Karn <karn@unix.ka9q.ampr.org>
Subject: Re: 2nd CJ update
Message-ID: <9403111829.AA20371@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Looks like the stalling tactics have begun. I just got a phone call
from "Susan Shea" from the National Security Agency. She said that to
"make a better determination" she would need a copy of the diskette.
I explained (as I had in my written request) that the diskette in
question contained exactly the same source code as was printed in Part
5 of the book Applied Cryptography, byte for byte. But she claimed
that as she did not have a copy of that, she would still need the
diskette.
Right. The NSA doesn't have a copy of Applied Cryptography, and has
never seen one. Yet, apparently, they signed off on my original CJ
request to export the printed book (the State letter mentions comments
from the Department of Defense, which is always a code phrase for the
NSA in such situations).
It's not that ``NSA'' doesn't have the book; it's that that office may
not. Or at least, making that claim isn't totally beyond the realm of
possibility. As for the original request -- they *don't* want to rule
that a book needs a license, of any sort; it opens them up to judges
who understand books but not floppies. (Let me commend to this audience
Kenneth Pierce's paper ``Public Cryptography, Arms Export Controls, and the
First Amendment: A Need for Legislation'', Cornell International Law Journal
vol. 17, 1984, pp. 197--236 -- it's a very good summary of the legal
issues. Though the details of the ITAR have changed, the underlying
legal theories have not.)
Sigh. I will send it off to them. This should buy them about two days,
unless I get really extravagant and switch from Priority Mail to
Express Mail...
Phil
PS. Does anybody consider it odd that someone from the NSA would
actually identify themselves as such?
My impression is that they've realized that that game is a bit stupid
at this point, and that they're giving up on unnecessary secrecy.
Return to March 1994
Return to “smb@research.att.com”
1994-03-11 (Fri, 11 Mar 94 10:30:00 PST) - Re: 2nd CJ update - smb@research.att.com