From: "P. J. Ponder" <ponder@freenet.tlh.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 21:23:16 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: rc2 export limits..
In-Reply-To: <199609051547.LAA07458@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.960905203549.46749B-100000@fn1.freenet.tlh.fl.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


keywords: block cipher, Bruce Schneier, SHA, ITAR

Thanks to Perry Metzger and Andrew Loewenstern for their responses to
my question viz: Why is SHA export controlled?  I should always check
_Applied Cryptography_ first before I ask a question.  And I guess now 
that I have two copies, I could leave the red one at the office and 
bring the blue one home.  

I didn't reply to Andrew Loewenstern and Perry Metzger separately,
because I think they both read the list, and I think replying to both 
might be bad form in those cases where the person is known to read the 
list.


on the subject of anonymity, maybe some folks have yet to understand 
the binary nature of it.  If there are exceptions to anonymous writing 
that can be enforced against the writer, then it's over.  Either others 
will be able to compel discovery of anonymous writers' True Names or 
they won't.  

If methods exist that permit writers to remain anonymous with very high
degrees of assurance that their true identities will not be found out,
then we will have anonymity.  It's either one or the other.  Anonymity
can be used to produce hate speech, lies, posting of intellectual
property, and other things that many of us would rather not see.  But, 
that is the price of having anonymity where it is needed and valuable.