Re: [iwar] news
From: Ross Stapleton-Gray
From: amicus@well.com
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:57:10 -0500
fc Wed Feb 21 20:07:08 2001
Received: from 207.222.214.225
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:07:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
(with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Thu Feb 22 04:07:03 2001)
X-From_: amicus@well.com Wed Feb 21 22:06:56 2001
Received: from c9.egroups.com (c9.egroups.com [208.50.99.230])
by multi33.netcomi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA24953
for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:06:49 -0600
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-981-982814797-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.55] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Feb 2001 04:06:37 -0000
X-Sender: amicus@well.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 04:06:36 -0000
Received: (qmail 6976 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 04:06:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 04:06:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO postal.dn.net) (207.153.221.107) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 05:07:40 -0000
Received: from home.well.com (pm-47.ppp.wdc.dn.net [207.226.188.47]) by postal.dn.net (111001-jg) with ESMTP id XAA27186 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:06:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010221224923.00d02d90@90.0.0.1>
X-Sender: director#embassy.org@90.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010221142618.00abaa90@poptop.llnl.gov>
References: <200102212136.NAA05381@all.net> <4.2.2.20010221091734.00ae1460@poptop.llnl.gov>
From: Ross Stapleton-Gray
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:57:10 -0500
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] news
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
At 02:54 PM 2/21/01 -0800, Tony Bartoletti wrote:
>If that sounds ridiculous, and the alternative answer is the empty set,
>what purpose is served today in crypto export restrictions? Is it really
>believed that this keeps the "bad guys" from using it? Or is it actually
>aimed at thwarting its ubiquity (sorry, favorite word) in routine use?
>
>I say again, the latter suggests protection of the "fishing" industry.
I was a part of the EFF's amicus brief in the Bernstein ("Snuffle") case,
and to me the most interesting question to be addressed re the export
control issue is exactly this one: while there's every reason to believe
that any given individual or organization could get as effective an
encryption system as they might desire, policy actions by the U.S. Federal
government over the last few decades have been effective at thwarting
widespread adoption and application.
While you could liken the policies and effects as attempting to address a
cockroach problem with a shotgun, leaving the restaurant of private
discourse and commerce a riddled, smoking wreck, you can't deny there are
some dead roaches for the trophy case.
Ross
_____________________________________________________________________
Ross Stapleton-Gray TeleDiplomacy, Inc.
director@embassy.org 2503 Columbia Pike, Suite 118
Arlington VA 22204
http://www.telediplomacy.com +1 703 685-5197 / 5257 fax
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://us.click.yahoo.com/kWP7PD/pYNCAA/4ihDAA/kzAVlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
------------------
http://all.net/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/