Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:04
Black Unicorn (unicorn@schloss.li)
Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:31:11 -0600
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mgraffam@idsi.net [mailto:mgraffam@idsi.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 3:04 PM
> To: Black Unicorn
> Cc: CodherPlunks@toad.com
> Subject: RE: hard to ban 'crypto holes' (Re: Crypto export....)
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Black Unicorn wrote:
>
> > If it is actually used to hook crypto in, it is a crypto hook.
> It doesn't
> > matter that this means any old generic code structure can be
> used to hook
> > crypto in. It doesn't matter than any reasonable person who
> has done even a
> > little bit of coding recognizes that this definition
> encompasses any and all
> > software distributions which have source code attached. It's a
> crypto hook.
> > You can't win this definition battle.
>
> I disagree. While history has shown the powers that be to be completely
> idiotic, not even they would take this to its logical conclusion:
> requiring export approval for word processors, spreadsheets and
> programming languages. The latter, especially, is a "crypto hook" by
> your standards.
Ah, but you miss the point. You're about 20 years too late. The definition
is only applied to those who "they" want to put the screws to. I might add
that the history of legal application in the United States shows the powers
that be quite willing to take to its logical conclusion such silliness when
it comes to conspiracy, RICO and Money Laundering. What makes you think
crypto is so different? It is, after all, one of the great evils.
Terrorists, Money Launders Drug Dealers, Child Pornographers are all invoked
when the evils of crypto are extolled.
If someone puts crypto into your software, you probably better be prepared
to answer some questions.
> So, it would seem that for those that are concerned with export law,
> they could simply write a good secure framework for an office suite
> or whatever (that takes care of data remanence issues, for instance)
> and let those evil bastard crypto programmers write the plug-ins.
No, not really. Again, the after effect (or the point for the paranoid) of
this legal structure is a definition which can be molded to fit anyone who
gets your attention. This is "the way things are done."
> Myself, I don't pay attention to export regulations in my personal
> dealings, so all this is sort of irrelevent. I look at it this way ..
> none of those goons that come up with those dumb-ass regulations would
> ever be the sort that are welcome to break bread with me. I can't see
> letting someone dictate my actions when I wouldn't even sit down to a meal
> with them.
I'm not sure how prudent that is but that's my opinion.
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:04