From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 11:15:36 -0800 (PST)
To: bgrosman@healey.com.au>
Subject: Re: Legal Deffinition of Encryption?
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19961109040141.00956568@healey.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961109141440.481C-100000@gak.voicenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

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.

Mark
- -- 
finger -l for PGP key
PGP encrypted mail prefered.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMoTYxCzIPc7jvyFpAQGs3wf/dcGpcRTLeoI84FcYgM1KFr7hkIyt6/bW
iAWaKbQmuNOs55KYkPUhqR9EaToXzOGN3MNT/L40auw4jEf2GHtereBh2gF6yX5p
l5yKqsotFwCuoHrGbOhJC351cpn0O04Zmq4uPfcVCQYpHW+zlJfRdcSBp1XXPZwm
bcXSp08XfhlIg+clg1R4L76SlnieKKE+6+upOv9Dq5l8s3F8OEe/jI/ff3DFKBxo
qHIqrZWzd6lCZtaiqBiL4PoyKE65Fx3yZrlaIhUsYvbCwyYXmz7N5sUrP4y17fGI
gICy7W+KUegiFoit3sdpa38R/J3EoVzVSTxpjvHvYXIz4gr+8QjdDw==
=HeWI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----