From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:27:03 -0800 (PST)
To: Peter Hendrickson <ph@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Legal Deffinition of Encryption?
In-Reply-To: <v02140b02aeaba1c8961f@[192.0.2.1]>
Message-ID: <32868CDB.7473@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Peter Hendrickson wrote:
> At 2:17 PM 11/9/1996, Mark M. wrote:
> >On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Benjamin Grosman wrote:
> >> I have absolutely no idea: this is a very interesting problem. Not for just
> >> compression and encryption differention legally, but also, well, ANY other
> >> data form. If one defines a new format for saving data (i.e a new image
> >> format), and then exports this technology from the USA, is this exportation
> >> of munitions due to it's unknown qualities? Or what?

> > I can't define encryption, but I know it when I see it.

> They way it will be forbidden is by outlawing the execution of the
> algorithms.  The algorithms (the secure ones anyway) are well defined
> as is executing them.  The legal system has dealt with greater
> ambiguities than this.
> An analogy to the drug laws might be useful.  We don't outlaw all drugs
> that cause you to have weird visions and to act strangely.  That would
> be hard to define and would cover a number of legal drugs.
> Instead, the specific chemicals are forbidden as they are discovered.

I can see how the chemical/drug thing works, and I can see how they can
easily control Public Key (PGP) encryption, but if you are suggesting
that they can effectively eradicate private key encryption, that would
seem to be an impossibility.

BTW, if the current Public Key program(s) were prohibited, wouldn't new
versions using different schemes pop up everywhere?