From: Carl Ellison <cme@tis.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 10:47:12 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: US Chauvanism -- hurting us
Message-ID: <9406291747.AA06406@tis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The announcement calling for calls to Moakley includes the following
explanatory blurb:

>Why is there a restriction on exporting products with technology
>in them?
>
>For many years the United States was a leading researcher in
>cryptography.  High quality cryptographic technology was available only
>within the United States.  The US government thought that if they did
>not let this technology be exported, foreign individuals would not be able
>to obtain it and use it against us (by keeping US intelligence agencies
>>from eavesdropping on their communications)
>
>Since then, cryptography research has been published in international
>journals.  Companies have been created throughout the world who
>export cryptographic technology from countries that do not have
>these restrictions.  You can now buy the same, high-quality cryptographic
>technology from many international firms.  Although the marketplace
>has changed, the regulations have not.

This is inaccurate chauvanism and is hurting our cause.

The US (and especially the NSA) wanted to believe it was the leader in
cryptography.  The NSA wanted to believe, and probably still believes, that
the only cryptography worthy of the name is what they produce.  Everything
else is mere toys.  The only crypto the US produces is therefore theirs and
therefore all crypto leaving the US needs to be controlled.

To the contrary, Switzerland has long been a producer of very good,
commercial crypto.  The US military even bought crypto devices from
Switzerland during WW-II, if I remember Kahn correctly.  Over the years,
different countries have taken the lead (since it's usually tied to
individuals and to national export and mfg laws).

In the 4000 year history of cryptography, private citizens of various
countries have been making, using and distributing their own strong
cryptography, without concern for government controls.

The US and the NSA might want to believe they're all that important, but in
fact they're not and never have been (except possibly for a momentary
period starting in about 1950 -- a period during which the US was #1 in
*everything*, since the rest of the world had been bombed back to
subsistence level).



Crypto is not a US product and *never has been*, wishful thinking by the
NSA notwithstanding.  Strong crypto has always been dual source and dual
use, except during those periods when civilians had it and the gov't
didn't.  Strong crypto outside the government and outside the USA is far
from something new.  If we concede that point to the proponents of
export controls and of Clipper, we have lost a major battle.

 - Carl