David R. Conrad (drc@adni.net)
Tue, 19 Jan 1999 03:37:00 -0500 (EST)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Black Unicorn wrote:
> Effectively none of this will work if they really want to stick it to you.
>
> coder and cypherpunks seem to get caught up in this pattern of playing
> definition games with the regulatory bodies. This is the wrong approach.
>
> 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.
Hold on. I think I understand your point, but are you assuming that the
same organization that produced the word processor also provided the
crypto plugin?
Let's say that the XYZ Corp. releases their word processor which has a
quite powerful plugin system. They provide plugins to convert several
popular document formats, and to do ZIP {in,de}flate (de)compression.
They also publish the specs to their plugin API, and suggest that others
might provide additional conversions and enhanced compression.
Six months later, some Australian hackers announce that they've produced a
plugin that provides strong {en,de}cryption. Is your analysis the same?
[Amusing broom story elided.]
David R. Conrad <drc@adni.net>
This is why I love America -- that any kid can dream "I'm going to get
naked with the President" ... and that dream can actually come true.
What a great country! -- Michael Moore
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNqREOYPOYu8Zk+GuEQIVnQCg52KYrESmRLl1fDQp29cevzRRjHsAnA15
EXyk2uBvDOo5x5vInygi6Bre
=4J3D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:04