Re: The New War

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

   http://guru.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/oc-abs.html

Denning thinks export of authentication and signature technology is OK,
but she draws the line at encryption.  This sounds fine, but what happens
when new technologies don't fit into these neat boxes?

How about blind signatures?  Those are used to create anonymous electronic
cash systems.  How comfortable will Denning be when criminals can set up
their own anonymous payment systems?

Would blind signature technology be allowed for export today?

How about zero knowledge protocols?  These can be used to show different
kinds of anonymous credentials and can be used to build anonymous cash
systems in their own right.  Generally, they enhance privacy by allowing
the parties to reveal only the information which is specifically necessary
for a transaction.

Would zero knowledge software be allowed for export today?

How about multiparty computations, or oblivious transfer, or blob
commitments, or any of the other building blocks of tomorrow's crypto
technology?  What is the export status of these going to be?  Will Congress
have experts who put each piece under a microscope and try to judge
whether it will be used for good purposes or bad?  It can't be done.  As
well allow exporting the letter "a" but not "i" since "i" is part of "kill".

This attempt to split cryptology into good and bad technologies won't work.
Knowledge space doesn't work that way.  It's probably not even going to be
possible to identify what is crypto and what isn't.  It's all a matter of dealing
with information in various ways.

Cypherpunks can expose this confusion by implementing other protocols and
trying to get them exported.  Go beyond old-fashioned signatures and
encryption.  These are mainstream today.  Stay on the edge, be ahead of the
curve.  Do something new.

John