From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:42:43 -0800 (PST)
To: "Mark M." <bgrosman@healey.com.au>
Subject: Re: Legal Deffinition of Encryption?
Message-ID: <v02140b02aeaba1c8961f@[192.0.2.1]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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 know that in Australia there have been problems defining electronic data,
>> especially pictures (usually porn), for the purposes of prosecution.
>> Because, really, a pornographic picture is no more than 1's and 0's arranged
>> in a different way by a different algorithm.
>> Thus I think it most likely that the law would try and approach it from the
>> direction of the algorithm that saved the data and the intent with which the
>> algorithm was written.
>> Otherwise, I don't know.

> 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.

Peter Hendrickson
ph@netcom.com