[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fw: So far, I think Mr. Aarons' Wassenaar statement is disinformation
- To: "Mailingliste Fitug" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Fw: So far, I think Mr. Aarons' Wassenaar statement is disinformation
- From: Christiane.Schulzki@t-online.de (Chr. Schulzki-Haddouti)
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:12:29 +0100
- Cc: "Mailingliste Krypto" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Reply-To: "Chr. Schulzki-Haddouti" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
_______ Tel. 0049 (0) 261 3 15 62
_______ Fax + 49 (0) 261 3 15 67
_______ RSA 2048/0x89F45EC7
_______ 023B 7E01 E1AF 482F E79F F0D3 A815 3F41
Von: Declan McCullagh <email@example.com>
An: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Datum: Freitag, 4. Dezember 1998 21:46
Betreff: FC: So far, I think Mr. Aarons' Wassenaar statement is disinformation
:[John is basing his analysis below on what's been posted on the Wassenaar
:site so far, and these kinds of documents aren't always put online
:immediately. That said, if Ambassador Aaron is talking about the online
:documents and John's analysis is correct, the Clinton administration is
:going beyond mere spin: it is trying to deliberately deceive. --Declan]
:Subject: So far, I think Mr. Aarons' Wassenaar statement is disinformation
:Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 10:55:00 -0800
:From: John Gilmore <firstname.lastname@example.org>
:I have not found a single confirmation of the Aarons statement that
:the 33 Wassenaar countries have agreed to change the exemption for
:mass market crypto software. (The NY Times and Reuters stories both
:quote Ambassador Aarons.)
:This lack of confirmation includes the Wassenaar Arrangement statement
:itself, which merely says:
: The amendments to the lists included elimination of coverage of
: commonly available civil telecommunications equipment as well
: as the modernisation of encryption controls to keep pace with
: developing technology and electronic commerce, while also being
: mindful of security interests.
:The Wassenaar Arrangement works by consensus; any member can block the
:adoption of any item merely by voting against it. The policy Aarons
:announced is directly contradictory to the recently reaffirmed
:government policies of Finland and Ireland. In addition, Canada and
:Germany have recently stated strong pro-crypto positions (while
:waffling on the particular issue of the treatment of PD and MM
:The Wassenaar Arrangement also states:
: This arrangement will not be directed against
: any state or group of states and will not impede
: bona fide civil transactions.
:To the extent that there is any attempt in the Agreement to control
:mass market or public domain crypto software, such a provision
:would clearly contradict this limitation written into the Arrangement.
:The Arrangement is for military goods -- not for civilian goods.
:PGP and other civilian crypto tools are not military by any stretch
:of the imagination. It's hard to imagine that all 33 countries would
:ignore this obvious problem, especially when it was pointed out to them
:by concerted lobbying over the last several months.
:I also note that none of the statements are clear about exactly what
:is affected. PGP, SSH, SSLEAY, Linux IPSEC, and many other crypto
:tools are "public domain" rather than "mass market" software. The
:General Software Note (originally from COCOM, and adopted bodily by
:Wassenaar when it was formed) exempted both "public domain" and "mass
:market" software from all controls.
:Finally, a companion paper released from Wassenaar yesterday shows a
:clear concern by the body for human rights and fundamental freedoms:
: e. Is there a clearly identifiable risk that the weapons might
: be used for the violation and suppression of human rights and
: fundamental freedoms?
:(In this case if the the Aarons statement was true, Wassenaar itself
:would be used for the violation and suppression of human rights and
:fundamental freedoms. It's hard to see that the delegates would also
:ignore this and vote to suppress human rights and freedoms.)
:So, I see two major probabilities here:
: * Either Aarons is lying, to see how much trouble this stirs up.
: This would be taking a page from FBI Director Freeh, who
: announced FBI support for domestic controls on crypto last year,
: and was then disavowed by the Administration when a ruckus
: * Or the NSA has cut a deal with these countries. Then the
: question is: what did NSA offer in return? The usual trade
: has been access to the flow of wiretaps (as in the UKUSA
: agreement that gives Britain, NZ, Australia, and Canada access
: to Echelon -- look who the strongest supporters of the US position
: are). Another alternative is that they used wiretaps to
: blackmail senior politicians in the recalcitrant countries.
: (It happened in the US by J. Edgar Hoover for many years.)
:Do either of you have any info that would tend to confirm or deny
:one of these theories?
:EFF and the GILC members are checking with various governments to
:start to flesh out what *actually* happened.
:I should also note that developments like this are rather expectable.
:Every time crypto policies get decided in a closed-door meeting where
:the US government is invited, they get worse. Whenever crypto
:policies are set in open meetings where the public and the press are
:able to watch -- or even, god forbid, participate -- they get better.
:The OECD meetings of a few years ago were intended to be the first,
:but citizens and journalists swarmed the meeting site, buttonholed
:delegates as they entered and left, and turned it into the second. We
:should've done the same with this Wassenaar meeting.
:US civil libertarians are prying crypto policy decisions into the
:light of day via the courts and the Freedom of Information Act.
:Classified NSA/FBI testimony to Congress is getting declassified, and
:then its obvious lies are easily rebutted by the public.
:The natural response of a bureacracy that is more concerned with its
:own power to wiretap, than with making the right decisions for its
:citizens, is to move its crypto maneuvering overseas into "diplomatic
:meetings", held under cover of diplomatic secrecy, where they can lie
:and twist arms with impunity.
:POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
:To subscribe: send a message to email@example.com with this text:
:More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/