Why did White House change its mind on crypto?

[mea culpa <jericho () DIMENSIONAL COM>]

From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>


http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/21810.html

Decoding the Crypto Policy Change
by Declan McCullagh (declan () well com)
3:00 a.m.  17.Sep.99.PDT

Why did the Clinton administration cave on crypto? What caused the
nation's top generals and cops to back down this week after spending the
better part of a decade warning Congress of the dangers of
privacy-protecting encryption products?

Why would attorney general Janet Reno inexplicably change her mind and
embrace overseas sales of encryption when as recently as July she warned
Congress of the "rising threat from the criminal community of commercially
available encryption?"

It can't simply be that tech firms were pressing forward this fall with a
House floor vote to relax export rules. National security and law
enforcement backers in the Senate could easily filibuster the measure.
Besides, Clinton had threatened to veto it.

It could be the presidential ambitions of Vice President Gore, who just
happened be in Silicon Valley around the time of the White House press
conference Thursday. Still, while tech CEOs can get angry over the
antediluvian crypto regulations Gore has supported, they regard Y2K
liability and Internet taxation as more important issues.

Another answer might lie in a little-noticed section of the legislation
the White House has sent to Congress. It says that during civil cases or
criminal prosecutions, the Feds can use decrypted evidence in court
without revealing how they descrambled it.

                     [...]

ISN is sponsored by Security-Focus.COM