Tim C. May's Interpretation of the U.K. Proposal

[nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)]

Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> The U.K. may sense that, absent such "local content" laws, the market for
> key signings, time-stamping, and other services will naturally concentrate
> in certain markets. 
> Longer term, the concentration may be more
> globalized, or even in "cyberspace," but almost certainly not in Britain.
 
> Nations may thus fear this flight of such services to other countries.

  Tim, at his best, interprets the U.K. laws from both a global and
local perspective.
  Certainly, any actions of the U.K., in particular, should be viewed
from the lingering shadow of the British Commonwealth. The U.K., having
ruled an Empire, is much more cognizant of the implications of how the
structure of proposed legislation will affect the expansion of global
aims, or the protection of indigeonous rule.

  Although "local content," as Tim points out, is undeniably one
of the major factors behind the legislation, the U.K. is also 
undoubtedly positioning themselves to resist letting the *power*
that comes from information *control* fall into the hands of
others.
  We have passed from the age when currency, alone, ruled.
  We are now truly in the Information Age, and those who wish to
rule, to control others, must rule and control information. This
is why the great battles of the day now surround standards and
encryption, and encryption standards, above all.

  The US Bumverments reversal on encryption policy is not a
result of enlightenment, but a result of other nations taking
a leading role in encryption development. They have not really
abandoned their plans to control all information, but have
merely recognized that they must move their efforts into the
global community before other powers have locked up the market.

  The only solution to the threat of global information control
by one, or a few, players, is to promote the widest possible
variety of encryption development.

> So, besides the obvious OECD/New World Order interpretations, the U.K.
> action may be a sign of something we may see more often: various countries
> attempting to restrict extra-territorial uses of encryption services for
> economic as well as for perceived national security reasons.

  Not just national security, but national *control*.
  Perhaps the U.K. is the first country to truly recognize and
act on the threat of national borders falling victim to the
global potential of new Internet technology.
  After all, they were one of the first nations to feel the
sting of the printing press, and to experience the birth pains
of the global changes that it would give birth to.

  Truly their is another great global war shaping up, but this 
time the battle will be fought with bits and bytes, and the
battleground will be electronic.
  The winner will rule the medium.

  The medium IS the message. Those who rule the medium will rule
the message. And in the Information Age, the message will rule
the world.
  "In the beginning, was the Message. And the Message was with
God, and the Message WAS God."

  McLuhan was a voice crying in the wilderness, an electronic
John the Baptist.
  He, too, spoke of one who would come who was greater than he.
And he warned of the evil one who would fight to rule the minds
of all mankind. 
  He warned of wolves, in sheep's clothing, who would claim that
their aim was to protect us from pornographers and drug dealers.
  Well, not in the King James version, perhaps, but I am certain
that it was worded that way in "Tim's Vernacular Translation of
the Bible."

TruthMonger

   N o t  D r. R o b e r t s
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~