RE: California State Bill SB1386

From: Rohrer, Mark E <mark.e.rohrer(at)lmco.com>
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 16:29:33 EST

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 Received on Wed Mar 26 18:43:58 2003