Abstract
Over the last decade, controversy has simmered over the degree to which the U.S. Federal government should control the publication of cryptographic research. The debate is not particularly heated at the present time; researchers seem to be waiting to see the results of a system of voluntary controls recommended last year by a panel of the American Council on Education. Despite the quiet, however, it is instructive to examine some of the history underlying the debate for several reasons beyond sheer curiosity. In the first place, such controls, whether voluntary or mandatory sanctions, could influence the future directions of civilian cryptographic research. Secondly, controversy or confrontation could still arise were a researcher to disagree with the results of the voluntary review. Finally, a recent speech by Admiral Inman, since retired as Deputy Director of the CIA, to the American Association for the Advancement of Science suggests that some in the U.S. Government would like to extend such controls to a much wider range of computer science and engineering research. This article is a brief and personal discussion of the principal components of the controversy by an author who found himself occasionally watching it from the sidelines and in some instances uncomfortably in the middle as an NSF project director responsible for some of the research under debate.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
