Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.crypt:15339 alt.security:9980 comp.org.eff.talk:16933 comp.security.misc:3417 comp.org.acm:1624 comp.org.ieee:1556
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,comp.org.acm,comp.org.ieee
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!shearson.com!newshost!pmetzger
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Once tapped, your code is no good any more.
In-Reply-To: louie@sayshell.umd.edu's message of 17 Apr 1993 13:10:00 GMT
Message-ID: <PMETZGER.93Apr18142223@snark.shearson.com>
Sender: news@shearson.com (News)
Reply-To: pmetzger@lehman.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
References: <1993Apr17.032828.14262@clarinet.com> <tcmayC5M2xv.JEx@netcom.com>
	<1qovj8$74m@ni.umd.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 19:22:23 GMT
Lines: 24


In article <1qovj8$74m@ni.umd.edu> louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:

   In article <tcmayC5M2xv.JEx@netcom.com> tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes:

   >But is it any worse than the current unsecure system? It becomes much
   >worse, of course, if the government then uses this "Clinton Clipper"
   >to argue for restrictions on unapproved encryption. (This is the main
   >concern of most of us, I think. The camel's nose in the tent, etc.)

   Excuse me?  This has *already* happened.  There's a couple of humps in
   the tent already.  Ask the folks at Qualcomm what became of the
   non-trivial encryption scheme they proposed for use in their CDMA
   digitial cellular phone standard?  There *already* are restrictions in
   place.

You have it slightly wrong. They dumped the encryption system because
they could not export it -- not because they could not produce it for
U.S. use. There are no legal restraints on citizen use of strong
cryptography -- yet.
--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
