From: shabbir@vtw.org (Shabbir J. Safdar)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 03:41:47 +0800
To: thad@hammerhead.com (Thaddeus J. Beier)
Subject: Re: TWP on Crypto Keys
Message-ID: <199603121158.GAA19202@panix4.panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I think the upshot of it is that they just read the bill (and the
surrounding issues) incorrectly.  I read the editorial and said to myself,
"they aren't reading the same bill the rest of us are reading".

-Shabbir J. Safdar * Online Representative * Voters Telecomm. Watch (VTW)
 http://www.vtw.org/ * Defending Your Rights In Cyberspace

Thaddeus J. Beier writes:
>Somebody posted this editorial this morning, that includes the
>following passage:
>
>>    The Washington Post, March 11, 1996, p. A18.
>> 
>>    Security and Software [Editorial]
>...
>> 
>>    Legislation introduced this month in both the House and the
>>    Senate would ease the export restrictions while attempting
>>    to meet some of the government's security concerns. Code
>>    makers would deposit a "spare key" to any exported
>>    encryption software with a trusted third-party agency...
>
>Now, I thought that the bills did no such thing.  How could The
>Washington Post get this so wrong?
>
>As I understand it, the bills do not in any way tie export to
>key escrow.  They mention key escrow only to the extent that
>they specify that it is illegal to disclose the keys.
>
>Why would the paper get this cockeyed?  Is it just a screwup,
>or are they pushing for a change?
>
>thad
>-- Thaddeus Beier                     thad@hammerhead.com
>   Technology Development                   408) 286-3376
>   Hammerhead Productions        http://www.got.net/~thad