[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No Subject
- To: [email protected]
- From: Anonymous <[email protected]>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 04:06:20 +0200
- Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.Please report problems or inappropriate use to theremailer administrator at <[email protected]>.
- Sender: [email protected]
> Actually, Hamre said that US companies have no Gawd-Given Right to
> _export_ strong crypto. See:
> http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/14098.html
Oh, it's sick anyhow...
A couple excerpts from jya's transcript:
On the EFF DES cracker: Now, I need to explain first of all, that the
government is currently permitting the export of 56 bit encryption
algorithms. Now, I know that there's some huffing and puffing about
whether that's strong encryption or not. But again, I say let's put this
in context. There was a flap here the other day when, ta-da, somebody
invented a computer that could break 56 bit encryption in 30 hours or 40
hours or whatever the time was, right. You took 40 hours to decrypt a
two-second message. And it was good only for that one message. You've
got to start all over again on the next two-second message. Tell me that
that isn't strong encryption.
[Secretary Hamre, that isn't strong encryption. Weak enough that cracking
DES keys for two grand each -- reasonable price considering some of the
applications using DES -- can be a viable business for the shady hacker
type, in fact. Pays for your parts in ten months, pocket most everything
else until the machine breaks.]
On export controls: "...I'd also ask American business not to make a
campaign out of just trying to bust through export controls as though
somehow there was a God-given, inherent right to send the strongest
encryption to anybody in the world, no matter who they are. I don't agree
with that. I will never agree with that."
["I will never agree with that" -- I'd say we're talking to an open-minded
individual who's really trying to work things out, eh?]
>
> Which, despite all the damage control and spin waves that followed
> the initial report in WiRed, does not mean that the NSA and DoD believe
> that anyone has been granted some privilege to speak in confidence that
> they, being reverent and religious fellows, should and must respect.
>
> Much ado about nothing, here!
>
> The first (perhaps literally erroneous) WiRed News report -- that
> senior DoD officials do not believe that any two people anywhere in the
> world have a perfect and unassailable right to speak in confidence and
> secrecy -- was spot on accurate and true.
>
>
> -----
> "Cryptography is like literacy in the Dark Ages. Infinitely potent, for
> good and ill... yet basically an intellectual construct, an idea, which by
> its nature will resist efforts to restrict it to bureaucrats and others who
> deem only themselves worthy of such Privilege."
> _ A Thinking man's Creed for Crypto _vbm.
>
> * Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <[email protected]> *
> 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548