From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman)
Subject: RSAREF and RIPEM
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:46:18 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 01-08-93 16:39
strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes, in 

1.

S(> It's troubling because it would permit any old provocateur to post
S(> restricted information on a bulletin board and then have it claimed
S(> that it was then exportable. Given the international nature of
S(> such bulletin boards, the provocateur could be someone outside
S(> the U.S. and thus beyond the reach of the law himself. That
S(> would vitiate elementary safeguards for those protections
S(> we might agree are legitimate.

David, in a non-inflamatory way, if the "provocateur" were outside the 
US, the posting would be from outside the US and the 'export' would 
have already been 'exported' in the past or have originated outside 
the US.

Even if it were restricted under US law, it might not be under the 
law of the country of origin or the country from which it was posted 
(which might not be the same). In fact, it might NOT be illegal to 
import it into the US (just to export or re-export it).

Then the provocation would be against the second 'exporter'. Is this 
how I am to understand the above?

2. 

S(> A couple of examples:
S(> Lotus Notes, which uses RSA, is not exportable though it may be bought
S(> at many software stores, as far as I know.
S(> 
S(> RSA has to sell special versions of its software with restricted
S(> key lengths overseas.

In this case, I must take the position that in the case of a Non-US 
Multinational corporation, I would never then approve the use or 
purchase of Lotus Notes.  I cannot afford to put my US competitors at 
an advantageous position by letting them use better protection than I 
can use.  After all, if they were to engage in industrial espionage 
against me, they would then have an 'unfair' advantage if I 
retaliated. Result would be my use of a different product, or a 
secondary encryption legal where I am, such as PGP.  Is this a 
reasonable position to take (I believe so), and how does it help Lotus 
Corporation?  

NOTE: the issue of industrial espionage and its legality is NOT a 
discussion point.  It does occur - it will continue to occur - and 
that is one of the reasons corporations protect data.  

NOTE: Nor is it an admissible arguement in a court of law in many 
countries to state that 'I knew the program had compromised protection 
(to meet required US Law) but used it anyway', when someones' privacy has 
been violated.  Just as in the US, if you know its dangerous, but use it, 
and someone else gets hurt, when you could have used something better that
you knew of, you have NOT mitigated damages and could be liable.  

For these reasons, I cound NOT authorize the purchase of any product with 
a 40 bit limit imposed by the US on non-US/Canada sales, if outside the 
US/Canada, and if I knew that that limit was both not imposed and not used
on the US/Canada version.  I could be violating MY COUNTRY's LAWS by 
making such a purchase and then using the product!


I agree that the flames should be kept to a minimum.  The positions 
taken are as a deliberate devil's advocate, and are not necessarily the 
positions I would take in reality.


R.S. (Bob) Heuman <robert.heuman@rose.com>
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001886: Twice as human as anyone else? my opinions are my own
   RoseMail 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp