The Long-Term Future of the Cryptography Policy Debate

[Stanley J Houghton]

At 21:34 09/03/98 +0000, Ian D. Goodyer wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>
>> My feeling is that this discussion better belongs on sci.crypt than
>> on this list, but until the list manager intervenes, I will continue.
>                   
>Yes, I agree we should try and keep the discussion to crypto legislation. 
>However fascinating the topic we should try not to wander into general
>cryptology/tempest/pgp on this list.  Thank you Jeffrey for suggesting
>it.
>
>A large number of important people subscribe to this list and lurk in the
>background listening to what we say.  Not only are there leading
>academics and lawyers, there are also CESG, DTI and government 
>representatives subscribed.  For this reason I think that it is important 
>that we try and stick to the topic in hand.  

However, speaking as one with no technical expertise in quantum computing,
I took notice of the warning that new technology may have the potential to
break new barriers in factorisation.  This is the first I have heard of it
and I would have missed something crucial had the discussion been culled
too soon.  I am grateful for the insight.  We spend our time extrapolating
current growth rates and sometimes forget the sudden leaps in technology.

I am interested in the legal implications of encryption and administration
in practical application of encryption technology.  Therefore, I am equally
interested in technical change that could have such enormous impact on its
application and security.  I feel personally that you got it just about
right in allowing a quick overview and pointers to further reading.

Thanks

Stanley Houghton
University of Bradford