4 ms·
Reading the charges, one jump to my mind as being scary: "Importation d'un moyen de cryptologie n'assurant pas exclusivement des fonctions d'authentification o
by sersi 2y ago
Reading the charges, one jump to my mind as being scary:
"Importation d'un moyen de cryptologie n'assurant pas exclusivement des fonctions d'authentification ou de contrôle d'intégrité sans déclaration préalable."
- Import of a cryptographic mean that does not exclusively perform authentication or integrity control functions without prior declaration.
This to me is a deeply disturbing charge, would that mean that using full disk encryption I'd be liable to be charged with that? Did the maintainers of LUKS do a prior declaration? If not are they likely to be charged if they ever travel to France?
After all, I can fully imagine a server being seized in a data center being encrypted with LUKS. In that case, is it the fault of the maintainers?
- BlueTemplar 2y ago> This to me is a deeply disturbing charge, would that mean that using full disk encryption I'd be liable to be charged with that? Interesting take, what counts as «importing» for software ? Is a copy (with source) of open-source software more in danger of being deemed so ? > Did the maintainers of LUKS do a prior declaration? If not are they likely to be charged if they ever travel to France? I would assume yes, but the likelihood might depend on their specific circumstances ? It wasn't that long ago that the USA considered cryptography to be on the same level of danger as weapons wrt export...