Re: FC: More on Network Associates and its crypto-politics

Declan McCullagh writes:

>TIS supports export controls on encryption products. My article:
> http://www.well.com/user/declan/pubs/cwd.shadow.cryptocrats.0298.txt

Two problems here.  First, you are using the present tense in saying that
TIS "supports" export controls, but your article is from nine months ago.
There have been many changes since then, including loosening of the crypto
export rules, the acquisition of TIS by Network Associates, and a recent
statement that TIS has backed off from its leadership role in advocating
key recovery.  What is TIS's current policy?  It certainly sounds like
it is changing.  You should find out before claiming to know what it is.

Second, even in the context of last February, what you wrote is:

> Some of the firms selected also endorse restrictions. Trusted Information 
> Systems recently circulated a policy paper calling for "sensible" 
> legislation to "make the export of 56-bit current interim DES controls 
> permanent and permit the export of stronger encryption when it is combined 
> with a key recovery system." (Which, coincidentally, TIS is happy to sell 
> you...)

At the time, this would have represented a LIBERALIZATION of export laws.
56 bit exports were only allowed in the context of a promise to add key
recovery even for 56 bit keys.  The statement you have quoted calls for
allowing 56 bit key export permanently, and only requiring key recovery
for stronger encryption.  True, it was not a call for full elimination
of restrictions, but it was a step in the right direction.

You are falling into the tiresome pattern of extremists who claim that
moderates are lackeys for the other side.  It's like an anti-abortion
fanatic who says that those who oppose murdering abortion doctors are
baby killers.  Try reporting the facts instead of altering them to fit
your biased views.

If anonymous has any evidence that TIS' policy has changed from earlier
this year, I'd like to hear it.

I guess if anonymous wants to call me an "extremist," I'll take it as a
compliment. Personally I think of myself as pragmatic.

-Declan


At 08:03 PM 11-18-98 +0100, Anonymous wrote:
>Declan McCullagh writes:
>
>>TIS supports export controls on encryption products. My article:
>> http://www.well.com/user/declan/pubs/cwd.shadow.cryptocrats.0298.txt
>
>Two problems here.  First, you are using the present tense in saying that
>TIS "supports" export controls, but your article is from nine months ago.
>There have been many changes since then, including loosening of the crypto
>export rules, the acquisition of TIS by Network Associates, and a recent
>statement that TIS has backed off from its leadership role in advocating
>key recovery.  What is TIS's current policy?  It certainly sounds like
>it is changing.  You should find out before claiming to know what it is.
>
>Second, even in the context of last February, what you wrote is:
>
>> Some of the firms selected also endorse restrictions. Trusted Information 
>> Systems recently circulated a policy paper calling for "sensible" 
>> legislation to "make the export of 56-bit current interim DES controls 
>> permanent and permit the export of stronger encryption when it is combined 
>> with a key recovery system." (Which, coincidentally, TIS is happy to sell 
>> you...)
>
>At the time, this would have represented a LIBERALIZATION of export laws.
>56 bit exports were only allowed in the context of a promise to add key
>recovery even for 56 bit keys.  The statement you have quoted calls for
>allowing 56 bit key export permanently, and only requiring key recovery
>for stronger encryption.  True, it was not a call for full elimination
>of restrictions, but it was a step in the right direction.
>
>You are falling into the tiresome pattern of extremists who claim that
>moderates are lackeys for the other side.  It's like an anti-abortion
>fanatic who says that those who oppose murdering abortion doctors are
>baby killers.  Try reporting the facts instead of altering them to fit
>your biased views.
>