1996-06-12 - Re: Britain to control crypto - official (fwd from Usenet)

Header Data

From: Marshall Clow <mclow@owl.csusm.edu>
To: wb8foz@nrk.com
Message Hash: 44529db9f796b84ec4983d1d3eaf5fa3b0d5e25398a17813561f35c9056818c5
Message ID: <v03007300ade3fff0f555@[207.67.246.99]>
Reply To: <199606112007.QAA01167@nrk.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-06-12 09:56:18 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 17:56:18 +0800

Raw message

From: Marshall Clow <mclow@owl.csusm.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 17:56:18 +0800
To: wb8foz@nrk.com
Subject: Re: Britain to control crypto - official (fwd from Usenet)
In-Reply-To: <199606112007.QAA01167@nrk.com>
Message-ID: <v03007300ade3fff0f555@[207.67.246.99]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>The British government quietly announced yesterday that it will
>legislate to restrict crypto. The details are in the attached
>Reuters and PA newswires.
>
[snip]
>    "The TTPs would offer digital signature, data integrity and retrieval, key
>management and other services for which there is a commercial demand," Taylor
>said in a written parliamentary answer.
>
It's been said before, but I'll say it again.
I have no objection with this.

If people wish to safeguard their encryption/signature keys by leaving them with a "trusted third party", then they should be able to do so.

If this is a requirement, then it's hardly a service for which there is a "commercial demand".

I assume that followup news releases (or the aforementioned workshop) will clarify the situation.

-- Marshall

Marshall Clow     Aladdin Systems   <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu>

"We don't have to take it; never have, never will.
Gonna shake it, gonna break it; let's forget it: better still" --The Who, "Tommy"







Thread