3 ms·
Well, there was a declassification of cryptography as munitions, which was very important. But that kind of proves the point, doesn't it?
by adrusi 10y ago
Well, there was a declassification of cryptography as munitions, which was very important. But that kind of proves the point, doesn't it?
- Bartweiss 10y agoYeah, it does. I almost called out the crypto wars specifically, because they were a political win caused by technical means (just too hard to control exports) and enabling technical progress (didn't regulate surveillance, but made privacy securable). To the extent that anyone has actually come to the table on this stuff, it's been as a result of technical change forcing their hand. I wouldn't be surprised if widespread encryption-by-default changes the terms of the debate and opens the door to more transparency from governments who want some degree of cooperation.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago"there was a declassification of cryptography as munitions" That's the popular tale. It was partial. Lots of stuff, including high-assurance systems and custom, stayed under old classification. Such export uncertainty was a consideration in the cancellation of A1-class, VAX, Security Kernel. Here's excerpts and links from a write-up I did on it after I dug into the actual export laws: http://pastebin.com/GHmHJASm http://pastebin.com/GHmHJASm Still like some help from professionals to confirm or reject my analysis. People dealing with export on Schneier's blog gave feedback indicating they never ran into trouble. Yet, they might have been under the mass-market classification. So, I don't know if the other one is enforced or under what circumstances.