Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late

At 02:57 PM 10/1/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 14:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
>To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
>Subject: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
[snip]
>What's even more disturbing is what the administration might do
>next. After the roundtable broke up, I chatted with Michael Vadis, one
>of the assistant deputy attorneys general who oversees national
>security issues. He said an international consensus is forming that
>terrorists can use crypto; therefore crypto must be controlled. The
>U.S. is certainly pushing this line at the OECD talks.
>
>"But it just takes one country to decide to export strong crypto," I said.
>"You're missing something," said Vadis.
>"What?" I asked. "Unless you're talking about import restrictions."
>"Exactly," he said.
>-Declan


An import restriction would be even less effective than the current export 
restrictions.  With an import restriction, a person need merely receive a 
given piece of software in the mail from an "unknown" benefactor, software 
that (surprise!) would have been illegal to import.  (the software doesn't 
even have to be mailed from outside the US, merely trucked in by a wetback 
and anonymously mailed by tossing it into the ubiquitous USnail PO Box.)   
Redistribution of this software would have to be legal, if for no other 
reason than nobody could prove it was imported illegally.  Nobody outside 
the US would have any standing to sue for copyright violation, because they 
couldn't import it and sell it without restrictions.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:
> An import restriction would be even less effective than the current export 
> restrictions.  With an import restriction, a person need merely receive a 
> given piece of software in the mail from an "unknown" benefactor, software 
> that (surprise!) would have been illegal to import.  (the software doesn't 
> even have to be mailed from outside the US, merely trucked in by a wetback 
> and anonymously mailed by tossing it into the ubiquitous USnail PO Box.)   
> Redistribution of this software would have to be legal, if for no other 
> reason than nobody could prove it was imported illegally.  Nobody outside 
> the US would have any standing to sue for copyright violation, because they 
> couldn't import it and sell it without restrictions.

You are missing something. Import restrictions only make sense if 
possession of the software will be illegal. And as any long time reader of 
this list should realize, this is what the government's crypto 
initiatives are in the long run all about. Clipper IV is just the nose of 
the camel.

--Lucky

At 8:32 PM -0800 10/1/96, jim bell wrote:

>An import restriction would be even less effective than the current export
>restrictions.  With an import restriction, a person need merely receive a
>given piece of software in the mail from an "unknown" benefactor, software
>that (surprise!) would have been illegal to import.  (the software doesn't
>even have to be mailed from outside the US, merely trucked in by a wetback
>and anonymously mailed by tossing it into the ubiquitous USnail PO Box.)
>Redistribution of this software would have to be legal, if for no other
>reason than nobody could prove it was imported illegally.  Nobody outside
>the US would have any standing to sue for copyright violation, because they
>couldn't import it and sell it without restrictions.

They can of course outlaw possession and distribution of code not legal to
import into the U.S., regardless of whether they can find out who imported
it.

Imagine your reasoning modified to cover a very relevant current law:

Origninal:

"Redistribution of this software would have to be legal, if for no other
reason than nobody could prove it was imported illegally."

Modified Version:

"Redistribution of narcotics and other drugs would have to be legal, if for
no other reason than nobody could prove they were imported illegally."

--Tim May

We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

hi,
 is Windows NT secured system ?



--
Petr Snajdr

Just woke up -- got up early today to head to ACLU Supreme Court
briefing -- but it strikes me that receiving nonescrowed crypto
through the mail might be like receiving kiddie porn.

Import restrictions, of course, will come with mandatory domestic key
escrow.

-Declan


On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:

> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 20:32:05 -0800
> From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
> 
> At 02:57 PM 10/1/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >
> >
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 14:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> >To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
> >Subject: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
> [snip]
> >What's even more disturbing is what the administration might do
> >next. After the roundtable broke up, I chatted with Michael Vadis, one
> >of the assistant deputy attorneys general who oversees national
> >security issues. He said an international consensus is forming that
> >terrorists can use crypto; therefore crypto must be controlled. The
> >U.S. is certainly pushing this line at the OECD talks.
> >
> >"But it just takes one country to decide to export strong crypto," I said.
> >"You're missing something," said Vadis.
> >"What?" I asked. "Unless you're talking about import restrictions."
> >"Exactly," he said.
> >-Declan
> 
> 
> An import restriction would be even less effective than the current export 
> restrictions.  With an import restriction, a person need merely receive a 
> given piece of software in the mail from an "unknown" benefactor, software 
> that (surprise!) would have been illegal to import.  (the software doesn't 
> even have to be mailed from outside the US, merely trucked in by a wetback 
> and anonymously mailed by tossing it into the ubiquitous USnail PO Box.)   
> Redistribution of this software would have to be legal, if for no other 
> reason than nobody could prove it was imported illegally.  Nobody outside 
> the US would have any standing to sue for copyright violation, because they 
> couldn't import it and sell it without restrictions.
> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
>