[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[FYI] (Fwd) RSA v. C2
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: [FYI] (Fwd) RSA v. C2
- From: Horns@t-online.de (Axel H. Horns)
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 18:21:30 +0100
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Organization: Private Site
- Priority: normal
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:34:38 -0500
From: John Young <email@example.com>
Subject: RSA v. C2
Dan Tebbutt wrote an excellent piece yesterday in The
Australian on RSA's fight with C2 for the IP of Eric Young
and Tim Hudson, the covert process of getting AU approval
for export of crypto and what it may mean for sweetheart
arrangements to bypass global controls (no, there's
no hint of GAK, yet):
What's also of interest is how it demonstrates what
appears to be happening with out-of-sight deal making
among crypto manufacturers and government, as indicated
by Freeh's remarks posted here by Declan.
Sue Parker at Americans for Computer Privacy says that it
too is busily working behind the scene to devise crypto legislation
"acceptable to all parties." She wouldn't say when drafts of deals
would be publically available. She did say that the recent Reno and
Freeh encryption remarks "are nothing new."
These offstage deals may account for why the crypto topic has
been relatively quiet, and not merely because of the impeachment
circus, maybe, indeed, the circus has served as a useful diversion.
The rising hurrahs for counterterrorism funding, both in the US and
overseas, portends a push for maintaining crypto controls worldwide --
as Reinsch stated in his speech yesterday: with a 64-bit worldwide
limit " a loophole in Wassenaar has been closed."
And BXA opened its regulation-rich, backroom deal-richer,
Wassenaar site on Monday:
Compare that smoke-filled Davos-forum with Dan's article on
ever far-reaching, ever-richer RSA. Dream turbo-capitalism.