Lucky wrote:
> What I found most interesting about today's announcement was not that it
> was
> largely content-free with respect to crypto export regulations and the
> fifth
> or sixth such content-free "crypto deregulation" announcement that I can
> remember causing the exact same predictable reactions by the press and the
> less operationally savvy.
>
Many operationally and politically savvy people still think
yesterday was important. I guess we're just clueless, too.
> No, what I find interesting is that so far
> everybody missed the one paragraph in the announcement that actually
> offered
> new information about the USG's insidious objectives.
>
That's one explanation for the coverage. I don't think it's quite right,
however.
I personally telegraphed those concerns by quoting David Sobel of EPIC who
said he feared industry and government would hop in the sack if the FBI got
the tech center it wants. The whole reference was one sentence.
How, you ask, could I be so glib? So superficial? One simple reason: reader
interest.
I couldn't, for the life of me, sell my boss on the idea of explaining all
the back doors and traps that might be inserted into code for yesterday's
story. That goes well beyond the scope of a mainstream news outlet when it's
already running one piece on a new, complex proposal. Tech pubs are, of
course, another question.
Consider:
1-- Most general-interest readers frankly won't read a full explanation of
the problem. It's far too arcane. (Those shocked by such wide-spread
ignorance may clear throats and scowl here.)
2 -- The issue is clearly going to be around for a long, long time. So
what's the rush?
If experience is any teacher, this whole issue of trade secrets will either
resolve itself quickly (no, no, says Ms. Reno, that's not what we meant,
let's clarify the language) or, far more likely, become the new
battleground.
I'd look for analysis on the issue further down the road.
Will Rodger
USATODAY.com
application/ms-tnef
