RE: California State Bill SB1386

["Rohrer, Mark E" <mark.e.rohrer () lmco com>]

Unfortunately, as with many laws, it will probably take a tort to bring this
issue to judicial litigation where it will then be addressed, potentially
appealed, possibly supremed, and finally referred back to the legislative
body to clarify exactly what they meant by "encrypted," and then the task
will be to craft a living definition that doesn't expire with the advance of
algorithms and technology that compromises current existing encryption.
Does anyone trust DES to secure their private data these days?

Mark
"Give credit where credit is due; from all others, get change."


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Zenone [mailto:zenone () cats ucsc edu] 
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 8:58 PM
To: incidents () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: California State Bill SB1386


Hello,

I appreciate the various replies that I've received. However, the
fundamental question of what defines encryption, so far as SB1386 is
concerned, is still unanswered. I've looked through other California State
Bills and supporting documentation, all to no avail.

Several "legal" folks have been asked about this. The answer remains
unclear. July 1st isn't too far off (when the State Bill becomes operative).

Thanks,
Steve


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerful Anti-Spam Management and More...
SurfControl E-mail Filter puts the brakes on spam,
viruses and malicious code. Safeguard your business
critical communications. Download a free 30-day trial:
http://www.surfcontrol.com/go/zsfihl1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerful Anti-Spam Management and More...
SurfControl E-mail Filter puts the brakes on spam,
viruses and malicious code. Safeguard your business
critical communications. Download a free 30-day trial:
http://www.surfcontrol.com/go/zsfihl1