27 July 1999. Thanks to CS-H and Telepolis. Translation by JYA with
Systran.
Source:
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/te/5117/1.html
TELEPOLIS, 27 July 1999
By Christiane Schulzki-Haddouti
The Federal Cabinet ended the smoldering uncertainties in the German encryption policy at the beginning of June with publication of five key points. However, the encryption debate is not ended. In the next year a further Wassenaar round of negotiations will be on the table. The US is already trying now to persuade changes in positions. For the US the liberal export politics of the Europeans is a thorn in the eye. It therefore tries to close the last gaps.
At the end of May US Attorney General Janet Reno requested in a letter (below) that Federal Secretary of Justice Herta Däubler-Gmelin control distribution of coding software which is becoming common "over the Internet." In addition it also positions "Public Domain" products. Reno's view is that the "use of the Internet to distribute encryption products will render Wassenaar's controls immaterial." At the end of year 2000 the Wassenaar agreement is to be negotiated; it regulates among other things the export of encyption products. Until then the USA wants with the 33 Wassenaar member states to develop a broad consent.
It is strange that the letter was addressed to the Federal Department of Justice and not to the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs, which, together with the Federal Ministry of the Interior, is responsible for encryption policy. The Americans probably well-know that the responsibilities are distributed within the German Federal Government. Therefore it is to be accepted that they figure a discussion with the Ministry of Justice has a larger chance of success.
The Federal Department of Justice did not want to confirm to Telepolis the existence of the letter. From the outside the ministry it means, however, it already has given several letters of the same request. It is now working on a letter in reply. However, it is not well-known whether the answer to Reno's unjustified demand is to fail. Arne Brand of the virtual local association of the SPD is annoyed about the "concealment policy" of the Federal Government:
"a cover broad I nevertheless only over a thing out, if I do not have an own point of view, but me the line of others to attach would like".
Encryption export policy as politico-economic instrument
Also, Hubertus Soquat, adviser in the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs, did not want to confirm the existence of the letter; he nevertheless referred Telepolis to the basis of the encyryption benchmark figures adopted by the cabinet as clearly a position: "possibly the demand" the American placed into that the area to adjust in the future also encryption products in the "Public Domain" category to counter German encryption policy, which is based on the free availability of encryption products.
The free availability covers the range from development up to use by the user. The Federal Government cannot therefore meet "possible American demands." Soquat is convinced of the fact that "encryption export policy is being handled as a politico-economic instrument of the USA, at least."
Thomas Roessler, spokesperson of the "Foerdervereins information technology and society " (FITUG), sees the Reno letter as an attempt to keep "electronic interception capabilities of American and allied authorities in force for as long as possible." He says that such export control would have absurd consequences:
"A computer journal, which contains a supplement CD-ROM on free cryptographic software, might not be sold at the kiosk anymore, or only by license to certain foreign customers. Also the publication of free cryptographic software for general access over the Internet would no longer be easily possible."
Besides, says Roessler, already the 1998 results of negotiation would contradict which cryptographic mass market software to export control, the actual purpose of the Wassenaar agreement. This consists of contributing "to regional and international security and stability as transparency and larger responsibility with the transfer by conventional weapons and dual-use goods and - technologies promoted and thereby destabilizing accumulations of such - goods and weapons are prevented." Besides "bona fide" civilian transactions are not to be obstructed. Roessler:
"Today, the use of strong cryptography is the best course of action, it interacts with the controlled transactions obviously in bona fide civil transactions.
The conception that an internationally destabilizing imbalance of military strength can be caused by free or mass market available encryption software, is "absurd." Reno's letter has to do nothing with the avowed goals of the Wassennaar agreement, "however, but with the attempt to keep in force the electronic surveillance capabilities of American and allied authorities," says Roessler.
Based on information of the "Electronics Frontiers Australia " (EFA) the export of "Public Domain" crypto software is already now forbidden in Australia, the USA, New Zealand, France and Russia, since these states do not use "the general software note" of the Wassenaar agreement. A reason is not well-known the EFA. Ingo Ruhmann of the "forum computer scientist inside for peace and social responsibility " (FifF) regards the attempt of Reno to subject encyption systems of stronger control as "thoughtless handling of essential fundamental rights of democratic states."
Already it is now foreseen that the "general software note" will play a central role in the Wassenaar preliminaries. An avowed goal of the USA is to prevent the download of encryption programs over the Internet. Also the treatment of "Public Domain" encryption software will be a topic. Still there are arguments about the definition of the term "Public of Domain." The Wassenaar agreement describes it as software which was made available "without restrictions on its further distribution." From a legal view it designates, however, goods, which are free from copyright rights. Critically: According to the wording it is sufficient to exclude a further spread on CD or without documentation so that a software no more than is not regarded "into the public domain." Is looked for now a definition for a product, which is everyone accessible and freely available.
Source: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/te/5117/2.html
Dear Minister Däubler-Gmelin:
I wish to thank you and your Government for your efforts to achieve a fair resolution regarding multilateral export controls on encryption products at the recent Wassenaar plenary session on December 2-3, 1998. While no Nation, including the United States, was completely satisfied, I think we made significant progress toward a regime that can support the interests of national security and public safety in the face of the challenges posed by the increasing use of encryption internationally. Given the divergent cryptography policies that the Wassenaar Nations have supported in the past, and the continuing controversy that cryptography policy continues to generate, that 33 Nations managed to find common ground augurs well for our future ability to find solutions that satisfy the divergent needs of privacy, electronic commerce, national security, and public safety.
Much work remains to be done. In particular, I believe we must soon address the risks posed by electronic distribution of encryption software. Although the Wassenaar Nations have now reached agreement to control the distribution of mass market encryption software of certain cryptographic strength, some Wassenaar Nations continue not to control encryption software that is distributed over the Internet, either because the software is in the "public domain" or because those Nations do not control distribution of intangible items. While I recognize that this issue is controversial, unless we address this situation, use of the Internet to distribute encryption products will render Wassenaar's controls immaterial.
I look forward to our continuing discussions on these and other issues. And again, thank you for your past and future considerations of these issues.
Sincerely, Janet Reno
Source is the editors