US Mass Market Crypto Exportable

[Owen Lewis]

You continue to miss the point, Brian. I think it is worth one last attempt
to have you address the point I make and not some other thing.

1.	Embargos on the shipment of goods to specified countries is often in
compliance with a UN Security Council resolution.

2. 	Where the UN resolves that there shall be such an embargo, the most
frequently embargoed goods are items for military use. These are weapons and
DUEC items.

3.	Much but not all crypto material is categorised as a DUEC item. This
categorisation is not a UN categorisation - any more that the UN categorises
main battle tanks as a military item. The categorisations are set nationally
according to what items are of value in military operations. Unsurprisingly,
a range of cryptographic items are of such value, are used by military
forces around the world and, therefore, are categorised as DUEC.

4. 	34 nations, large and small, almost a quarter of the nations in the UN
and including most of those with an advanced techno-industrial base, have
chosen to coordinate on a voluntary rather than on any mandatory basis,
their categorisation and control of military and DUEC exports. Moreover,
they keep each other informed about the movement of such items between
states. This is the Wassenaar Arrangement. It has nothing to do with UN
resolutions requiring all member nations to cease certain types of trade.

5. 	The UN resolutions are requirements on all the member nation states.
Wassenaar is merely a convenient coordination of national policies between
34 of those states. The resolutions apply to all, Wassenaar or no.
Wassenaar coordinates, for 34 states, trade in mil/DUEC items. The UN from
time to time embargos such trade between all other states and specified
destination states.

You see Wassenaar as a bogey man because it is an arrangement within which
many states coordinate their DUEC controls. But China is not a party to the
Wassenaar Arrangement.... do you think that the Chinese govt does not
consider much cryptographic material to be an item of military use and do
not treat it accordingly? You may answer that if you wish. If yes, then the
froth here about Wassenaar collapses. If no, then I think you inhabit some
parallel universe :-) I suppose one could attempt a proof by asking the
Chinese Embassy to provide a copy of the source code for all their state's
military ciphers :-)

I know you do not approve that crypto is categorised as DUEC. But is it so
classified and there is not a hope in hell of all such control being
dropped - short of crypto losing its power to obtain conditions of secrecy.
This has nothing to do with Wassenaar, per se, and everything to do with
common sense. Hence, most crypto is subject to UN embargo.

The points briefly set out here, 1 - 5, are not matters of opinion but of
fact. The papers that provide the factual evidence are available to all who
will look at them. Follow dti.co.uk; follow the DTI links to export controls
and hence to the UN site and the Security Council resolutions. You have
already given a link to the Wassenaar Arrangement.

Owen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Brian Gladman
> Sent: 11 June 2002 15:52
> To: UK Crypto Posting
> Subject: Re: US Mass Market Crypto Exportable
>
>
> From: "Owen Lewis" <oml@sysrx.uk.com>
> To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 12:44 PM
> Subject: RE: US Mass Market Crypto Exportable
>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> > > [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of
> Brian Gladman
> > > Sent: 11 June 2002 00:13
> > > To: UK Crypto Posting
> > > Subject: Re: US Mass Market Crypto Exportable
> > >
> > > And as an ex-insider with a direct involvement I can say with complete
> > > confidence that the UN has never played any significant role in
> > > orchestrating cryptography export controls.
> >
> > Your play with words obscures the truth rather than illuminates it. Many
> > export controls, especially DUEC, are driven by
> > UN resolutions requiring action in compliance by member states.
> This is a
> > matter of fact as anyone who cares to follow the trail of the relevant
> > resolutions, directives and orders can confirm for themselves.
>
> To suggest that dual use encryption controls stem from UN resolutions is
> complete drivel.
>
> Most dual use controls, especially controls on encryption, are
> derived from
> the Wassenaar Arrangement as detailed here:
>
> http://www.wassenaar.org/welcomepage.html
>
> and this is an organisation has nothing whatsoever to do with the UN.
>
>    Brian Gladman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>