From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 13:36:01 +0800
To: <cryptography@c2.net>
Subject: RE: What was the quid pro quo for Wassenaar countries?
In-Reply-To: <v04020a00b28e65e25687@[139.167.130.246]>
Message-ID: <000e01be200d$d7be9e10$8007a8c0@russell.internal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



John Gilmore may be right, but remember folks that in Europe we have this
thing the Greeks invented called democracy. One of the ideas of democracy
is that decisions are not made in secret closed meetings.

The interpretation of the US ambassador appears to be based on the
assumption
that the governmental proceedures of democratic countries are like those of
his home country. In fact European governments cannot make law simply by
telling the national police force to arrest folk who engage in particular
behaviour.

The system of checks and balances may be described in the US constitution
but it is entrenched in the European polity. The UK does not have a national
police force precisely to stop Hooverism.

Even directives of the European Commission do not have legal force until the
national parliaments enact legislation to implement the directive.

One should also remember that the government of the Netherlands has agreed
to control the sale and use of narcotics. If their efforts to control
cryptography are as dilligent we have nothing to worry about.

In addition under the single European act the entire country of Europe is
one export zone for crypto control purposes. I fail to see that stopping
Brits from exporting crypto to the US changes the equation a great deal.


There once was an English king called Canute who attempted to demonstrate
to his courtiers that he was fallible and could not order the tide to
turn. Perhaps Clinton's courtiers need to learn that they suffer the same
limmitation.

		Phill