From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 05:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Subject: Re: Initial summary/analysis: Junger v. Daley
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980707223313.20768A-100000@ideath.parrhesia.com>
Message-ID: <199807081237.IAA10722@camel7.mindspring.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Thanks to Greg for the excellent summary and analysis.
Responses by Peter Junger and his attorneys, those
involved with Bernstein and Karn, and others on the
technical and legal interpretation would be welcome.

On the interplay among the three cases: We have heard 
that there was meeting in DC of the three teams with the 
US side. And that there may have been a report on this 
meeting at the recent DC security conference. Is there a 
public report available?

Note: Greg meant to quote Judge Gwin on source code: 
"all but *un*intelligible to most people."

The contrast between Patel and Gwin remind of the
campaign of Wassenaar members to claim relaxation
of crypto controls while not truly doing so, as in the
recent Irish and US press release deceptions. More
are expected as the US trade and crypto czars make
their global rounds to arrange overt-covert deals for
marketing munitions. The complicity of the banks 
and giant corps is not surprising with their legacy of 
doing just that -- as one defense expert says, expect 
ex-gov crypto watchdogs to aid the market titans to lure 
government buyers while peddling cheap knockoffs
to voters.

Amazing that the NYT sent up that trial balloon for
government access to key strokes in lieu of GAK.
Who's pushing that, working on the technology?