Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: DPSWG Crypto-Policy Statement to White House

[jim@bilbo.suite.com (Jim Miller)]

Stanton McCandlish writes:

> NOTICE: This is the letter from the Digital Privacy and
> Security Working Group sent to the White House 12/06/93,
> urging the Administration to lift export controls on
> DES, RSA and other mass market encryption without
                     ^^^^^^^^^^ ??
> requring legislation.   

> 


Why only "mass market" encryption?

The company I work for is developing a collection of runtime libraries and  
utilities which software developers can use to create and manage portable  
object-oriented distributed applications.  Think of it as a  
object-oriented DCE-like tool set with a run-time environment and system  
administration utilites.

Our customers are primarily large corporations, although it would be  
useful to small shops, too.  We have communication software that can  
perform encryption of user data, but the current export laws prevent us  
from placing this capability in versions for our foreign customers.   
<sigh>  We have to maintain two distinct versions of our product: a  
domestic version and and foreign version.

Since we target other software developers, I don't believe our product  
qualifies as "mass market" software.  At least, this is my interpretation  
of the definition of "as is" in the Cantwell bill:


> For example, generally available software is offered
> for sale or licensed to the public without restriction
> and available through standard commercial channels of
> distribution; sold as is without further
> customization; and designed to be installed by the
> purchaser without additional assistance from the
> publisher.  Computer hardware and computing devices are
> also defined. 

>       .
> 	.
> 	.
> 15          ``(4) DEFINITIONS.---As used in this
> 16     subsection---
> 

> 1               ``(B) the term `as is' means, in the case of
> 2          software (including software with encryption ca-
> 3          pabilities), a software program that is not de-
> 4          signed, developed, or tailored by the software
> 5          company for specific purchasers, except that
> 6          such purchasers may supply certain installation
> 7          parameters needed by the software program to
> 8          function properly with the purchaser's system
> 9          and may customize the software program by
> 10          choosing among options contained in the soft-
> 11          ware program;
> 

> 



Although we don't make custom versions of our software for specific  
customers, our software, due to its nature, is highly customizable by the  
purchaser.  Neither the Cantwell bill, nor the DPSWG letter mentions this  
type of software product.

As I see it, the main distinction between "mass market" software and our  
software is that our software is used to create other software, whereas  
"mass market" software implies final product "end-user" software.

My question to the DPSWG (and US Rep. Maria Cantwell, if I could e-mail  
her) is:

Why only "mass market" software?


Or put another way:

Does the DPSWG want the government to keep export controls in place for  
the type of product our company is developing?

Thanks,

Jim_Miller@suite.com