US Mass Market Crypto Exportable

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Brian Gladman
> Sent: 07 June 2002 00:50
> To: UK Crypto Posting
> Subject: Re: US Mass Market Crypto Exportable
>

> > If the product is given away
> > freely or put on general sale to the mass market, the restrictions are
> > waived. I.e. one can conveniently act as a box shifter for PGP etc.
>
> This is a nice feature which promotes the sale of strong crypto
> products as
> mass market items since they would become subject to controls if
> not sold as
> such.

Forgive me, but that argument does sound non sequitur :-)

The observation than mass market sales of strong crypto will be *promoted*
because of a *reduction* in control is arguable. What it plainly does do is
to allow US manufacturers to play on the same field as anyone else, USG
finally admitting that it has lost its argument.

It does not follow that such a 'feature' is nice.

The proposition has several facets, each of which require more careful
examination that it is reasonable to attempt here.

1. 	Have govts finally given up the wish to break cipher used by black hats?
Y/N.

2.	If Y then why the remaining controls?

3.	If N then does the generally careless operation and large volume of mass
market cipher texts offer govts any advantages? Y/N.

4.	If Y, then what are those advantages and how can they be best exploited?

5. 	If N, then can govts sufficiently counter by the planned massive
increases in legitimate comms surveillance and enforced, selective, covert,
disclosure of keys?

6. 	Is the interest of the general public better served by

> It is also important to note that sauce code is not export controlled.

Unless you meant to say 'effectively controlled', I think you may be
mistaken. AIOLI, this comes under the head of technology transfer which is
definitely subject to some controls.

It is interesting to note that whilst some rail against the bar on cipher
technology transfer to (say) Iraq and Iran, the embargo, though nationally
enforces is an international embargo agreed by the UN.

> Designs in C, VHDL, etc. are now easy to produce and modern 'home' PCs are
> now so powerful that they can run hardware simulators that can check out
> designs in detail to get them right without ever seeing real hardware.  I
> done just this for a number of international clients.

In respect of hardware for military/dual use, take a look at the MOD Form
680 which some exporters use as a route to faster export licence clearance.
As you will remember, these matters are handled by the Defence Export
Services Organisation.

> Of course we now have the current UK government attempt to gain control of
> abstract exports so we need to support the efforts being made by Ross and
> others to prevent these freedoms from being eroded.

There we have it. Whereas the controls are nationally administered, many are
UN mandated. To that extent, your tilt at UK govt is blinkered and
consequently misguided. If you propose that individuals should defy a UN
embargo because they feel it to be unfair - well, we all make our choices in
life and live with the outcome of those choices, good or bad. Though we may
not admit it or, in some cases even know it, such radical choices often have
disastrous effects on the lives of others. Of course, there is a school of
thought that runs along the lines of, 'Though I cannot know any such thing,
I believe that I am right and, because I believe so, I shall act accordingly
and to hell with the rest'. This pattern of thought has given us Oliver
Cromwell, St Thomas More, Napoleon, Florence Nightingale, Hitler, Stalin and
Pol Pot in out global pantheon of heroes. It's interesting that, what ever
the place these are accorded in history, there is blood on the hands of all
of them and only on the hands of one is that blood laudable. I think the
lesson I draw is that those so minded are commonly drawn to the shedding of
blood, though it is most frequently the blood of others rather than their
own that is spilled (again, one exception in the short list above).

For myself, I do not feel that the embargos achieve a great deal and that
they may even be regrettable. Nevertheless, they do seem to represent the
least unfortunate method of curbing the activity of a few states whose
corporate behaviour has proven rabid.

For all free spirits, complying with any regulation with which one is
personally out of sympathy is irritating or even uncomfortable. Nevertheless
we are all generally better served by the moderation of personal wishes by
corporate decisions. This is after all the fundamental process of democracy
which, if one tries to express purely in terms of self, promptly loses all
meaning.  In the case you put in point, changing the corporate decision is
seriously complicated by the fact that it is a decision supported and
implemented (in theory) globally and is not a national matter per se. One
might sensibly conclude that corporate decisions against which the
individual has no effective and lawful recourse are a thoroughly bad thing.
I would personally support such a conclusion. But then I'm an old crusty who
believes that, other than as a forum for the exchange of views, the UN does
more harm than good. In any event, it is the windmill of UN authority that
one must tilt against - if one is to tilt at all.


Owen