From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 11:03:45 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: How might new GAK be enforced?
Message-ID: <199610022113.OAA15158@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:55 PM 10/1/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>At 8:32 PM -0800 10/1/96, jim bell wrote:
>>At 09:39 AM 10/1/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
>>>(Else what's to stop Giant Corporation from using Non-GAKked software
>>>within the U.S., which is perfectly legal (under the "voluntary" system),
>>>but then "happening" to have their foreign branches and customers obtain
>>>"bootleg" versions at their end? All it takes is a single copy to get out,
>>>and be duplicated a zillion times. Voila, interoperability, with the only
>>>"crime" being the first export...which is essentially impossible to stop,
>>>for so many reasons we mention so often. Conclusion: Government must make
>>>this very mode illegal, perhaps by making it a conspiracy to thwart the
>>>export laws....)
>>
>>If this solution were really practical, it would have been tried already.
>
>And just what would you call PGP?

The "impractical" I was referring to is the impracticality of the government 
implementing and enforcing restrictions on communications using (non-GAK) 
crypto.  The only place this seems to exist is in ham radio.

The crypto itself is eminently practical, as the PGP example makes 
absolutely clear.


>Long before the MIT deal, people in the U.S. were using their "OK in
>America" (not counting RSADSI's issues) software to communicate with
>"illegally exported" copies in foreign lands.
>
>This model--leaking a U.S. version and then communicating freely between
>U.S. sites and the "leakee" sites--worked for PGP. I believe the USG fears
>this will happen again.
>
>Hence my speculation that they may try to illegalize the mere communication
>with an offending product.

"I predict they won't be able to do it."



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com