home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!strnlght
- From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
- Subject: Re: PGP - Legal?
- Message-ID: <1993Jan5.185502.13836@netcom.com>
- Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- References: <1993Jan5.030228.10817@netcom.com> <9301051125.AA51399@chaos.intercon.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:55:02 GMT
- Lines: 35
-
- In article <9301051125.AA51399@chaos.intercon.com> amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
- >David, perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by "natural" superiority; I am
- >saying that any such superiority is a matter of circumstance, not something
- >magic about the USA...
- >
- If by circumstance you mean such things as a national decision to create
- the NSA and spend a lot of money on it, I'd agree. Yet there's no reason
- to believe this circumstance will not continue.
-
- If by circumstance you mean the externals of non-governmental
- support--academic department funding, tenure tracks, etc. I don't have
- enough information to comment.
-
- I will say that a few hackers copying someone else's program or
- algorithm, or refining it don't a cryptographic dominance make. If it
- did we wouldn't be having all those discussions about 'has the NSA
- broken thus and so?', which sound to my ears like some of the fears of
- developing countries in the face of the dominance of the
- Industrialized ones in economic matters.
-
- One caveat with respect to the U.K. GCHQ has made major contributions
- and breakthroughs, and thus the (heretofore?) American dominance
- might more accurately be described as Anglo-American dominance.
-
- Finally, if by "natural" superiority you meant something nationally
- inherent, I don't follow you because I don't know of anyone who
- ever made THAT claim.
-
- David
-
-
- --
- David Sternlight
- RIPEM Public Key on server -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
-
-