From: Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 14:41:01 +0800
To: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
Subject: Re: What was the quid pro quo for Wassenaar countries?
In-Reply-To: <199812050240.SAA24692@toad.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981205065847.3124A-100000@pakastelohi.cypherpunks.to>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, John Gilmore wrote:
 
> We will have to fight this one in the trenches, in each country.
> First step is to raise a hue and cry and put each government on the
> defensive (as they well ought to be).

Ultimately, It won't make a difference, but sure, why not. Crypto regs can
go one way, and one way only: more restrictive. See some 5 years of my
postings on this topic. Lobbying and litigation can only delay the arrival
of a total ban on general purpose strong crypto, not prevent it. Note that
I am not at all claiming that either lobbying or litigation is useless. By
all means, keep it up. It just won't change the fact that the ratchet
turns only into one direction. Until the ratchet breaks, but that is
another matter entirely and tends to be acompanied by lots of dead bodies.

>  Then let's find out what "deal"
> they made with the devil.

I doubt we will find out anytime soon. Favors? Blackmail? Most likely
all of the above. But it doesn't matter why the representative of
country A or B voted for export controls. We already know that most, if
not all, governments would fall all over themselves banning crypto
outright were they exposed to some of the traffic this list has seen over
the years.

What does surpise me, however, is why some people (not John) tend act
surprised when the ratchet tightens yet another notch. I can't help but
wonder if they are equally surprised when the sun goes up in the morning
or tide moves in. Weird.

-- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP v5 encrypted email preferred.