Global vs. national interests

It is a well-known fact that despite the global nature of the information networks, there does not exist global laws or agreements how to handle conflicts between different legal systems. Good example is the recent attempt of Iranian government to charge Michael Jackson and Madonna for violating Iranian laws of indecency. Our European notions of basic rights, morality, law, and ethics are generally individually oriented, and not accepted worldwide. Liable laws are traditionally national, yet they are applied in Cyberspace. Is there a notion of global liability? How do I sue a person in another nation? What happens to global commerce if there is not a common understanding? Can there be an international agreement on the transport of cryptography material across national boundaries?

Cryptography has traditionally been a national-security issue, and several countries, especially U.S., have placed export controls on cryptography technology. Export controls intend to restrict international availability of this technology and cryptography products. U.S. export controls on have substantially slowed the proliferation of strong encryption to foreign adversaries over the years. Some countries like France or Russia, have also import controls on cryptography. This is because the local government wants to be have full control over cryptography technology.

Phil Zimmermann's PGP is a good example of a very controversial case of export restrictions. Zimmermann is currently charged for exporting the PGP overseas, because this strong algorithm has been accessible on the Internet.

[Next] [Prev] [Contents]

mtu@cs.hut.fi - 04 DEC 95