It seems that the government has a perception that crypto _will_ be
controlled through key escrow and export restrictions.
I think no one knows the answer to these questions:
Does anyone know if strong encryption (SSL, PGP, VPN) systems will be
'grandfathered' into legality, or will strong encryption systems have to be
replaced with damaged versions?
In other words, will today's 128-bit VPN routers/firewalls/tunnel
servers/webservers need to be swapped out by law, in the near future? I'd
rather keep existing 128-bit systems in place than do 'key escrow' or weak
encryption.
Bill Stout
Below is the background for asking:
______________________________________________________________________
Extract from Fight Censorship Announce list:
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:20:05 -0400
Subject: FC: Crypto-continuation in Washington: FBI/DoJ keep up the pressure
Sender: owner-fight-censorship-announce @
vorlon .
mit .
edu
X-Fc-Url: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/
Crypto is hot in Washington. Don't think the battle's over; it's just
beginning:
* This afternoon when the Senate Intelligence committee met to consider a
new CIA deputy director, Sen. Bob Kerrey said "there's a real urgency" to
get an encryption bill passed. (Presumably, that would be his bill, the
"Key Escrow Infrastructure" McCain-Kerrey/S.909.)
* Last week Janet Reno talked at her weekly press conference about
balancing law enforcement rights with privacy rights -- through mandatory
domestic key escrow.
* Yesterday Louis Freeh spoke at length before the House International
Relations committee about the spread of nuclear weapons... and reminded
committee members about the problems the FBI has with nonescrowed crypto...
* Sen. Jon "Mandatory Domestic Key Escrow" Kyl said on Sunday that the
Clinton administration's export controls on crypto were *not tight
enough*...
|
|
