4 ms·
From what I remember, what was illegal was exporting a (useful) encryption library, and that Wikipedia link supports my memory: It talks about exporting munitio
by Tor3 3y ago
From what I remember, what was illegal was exporting a (useful) encryption library, and that Wikipedia link supports my memory: It talks about exporting munitions. I remember at the time that even though libraries existed inside the US they weren't supposed to be exported to other countries (i.e. the rest of us should get encryption libraries developed outside the US). Nothing prevented US citizens in the US to use encryption. Nothing in that "cryptography is considered munitions" legal issue, at least, because that was about export.
- Thorrez 3y agoThey can't use encryption if they can't get encryption software. I recall hearing that companies outside the US could distribute software with competent encryption without problems (to people inside and outside the US), but companies inside the US basically couldn't distribute software with competent encryption, because someone outside the US might download it.
- Tor3 3y agoBut I remember the time. The software could be downloaded from inside USA. Mid-nineties the internet wasn't particularly large and (what's nowadays) simple measures were in place. In practice you could get it from the US even if you were outside, but then again USA wasn't the only place where encryption software was made, so we all thought it a bit silly. What I'm getting at is that it's simply incorrect that encryption wasn't available in the US, and it's also incorrect that encryption couldn't or wasn't in use. It most definitely was. The regulations were only about export. 40 bits max and all that.
- mratsim 3y agoI understand where you're getting at, but lawyers would see "is it possible for people out of the US to download this? Yes? Well lawsuit incoming, by the government/military." This is way too much of an unknown. And we've seen with P2P/Napster and DMCA where just listing links without distributing still opens people to legal issues.
- Tor3 3y agoThose of us who were active back then did see the software. It was not kept off servers. It's just that I don't think archive.org was active at the time so we have no way of showing it to you, I believe. Edit: As for Napster and DMCA, the Napster story happened in 1999 and the DMCA in 1998. The limitations on crypto were loosened in 1998 and 1999 and removed in 2000. In other words, Napster and DMCA isn't really relevant here - the encryption story mostly unfolded before that time.
- DiggyJohnson 3y agoYou are speaking past the GP by missing the de jure (their point) versus de facto (your point) aspect of the discussion, I think.
- Tor3 3y agoPossibly - but my impression is that the GP is rejecting as impossible what I'm stating - that in fact you could use cryptographic libraries in the US, because they were, indeed, available. GP seems to argue that they could not have been available because that would have allowed them to potentially be downloaded (exported) outside of the US, which was illegal at the time.
- tptacek 3y agoNone of this is true. It really feels like there are a couple people who were, like, alive in the 1990s trying to explain to people that cryptography was not in fact illegal or even regulated in the USA during the heyday of Ace of Base, and then a lot of younger people trying to axiomatically derive an alternate history where nobody could encrypt anything. You could just download PGP and run it, and if you go look at back issues of Wired, you'll see that lots of people were begging Americans to do just that.
- mratsim 3y agoThe fact that it was not enforced doesn't mean there wasn't a sword of Damocles above your head.