1998-05-01 - Re: Reno reports “suspicion” in industry crypto-negotiations

Header Data

From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: a2b5f0b185f683534055116e8150a21d0d04a95f52137d1811dd6aed52f74d18
Message ID: <199805011740.NAA22381@dewdrop2.mindspring.com>
Reply To: <199805011541.RAA23552@basement.replay.com>
UTC Datetime: 1998-05-01 17:40:35 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:40:35 -0700 (PDT)

Raw message

From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Reno reports "suspicion" in industry crypto-negotiations
In-Reply-To: <199805011541.RAA23552@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <199805011740.NAA22381@dewdrop2.mindspring.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Daley's statement on crypto export has been pulled from the DoC
Public Affairs Web site, as noted in Peter Junger's latest filing,
in which the vanished statement is cited as support for lifting 
suspicious back-scratch dealings like ACP's.


What's the latest on publicizing the several ACP drafts floating 
around "industry and agencies" for comment on what TLAs and 
ACP are rigging in the public interest.

Weren't some of these stalking drafts nearly liberated recently? 
Or were they only floated for trusted eyes only?

Congressional hearings are due shortly to air the stench.

As Entrust said in defense of its patenting what was thought
to be in the public interest: "Encryption is no longer an academic
pursuit, now it's very big business."

RSA, NAI, Entrust, ACP, TLA, take your pick, not that there's much
diff where "national economic security" interest surpasses the public.