tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes: I believe the focus on Clipper/Skipjack details and technical issues plays into the hands of those who want to deploy these systems. ... But let's be sure it doesn't divert us away from a prinicple rejection of the whole concept of key escrow.
I agree that focussing on the technical side is a diversion, and I have been a major offender here lately. But I also think it's important that we understand what it is we're opposed to. When challenged by an articulate LE spokesperson in front of people we want to influence, if we blurt out things about 40 bits being half of 80, or about acknowledged trapdoors in Skipjack, or hogwash about pre-or post-encrypting on one side or the other of Clipper, we won't be taken seriously -- so I think it's important to counter misinformation with hard information when possible. [And yes, I did misstate myself a bit on the 80-bit halves stuff... sorry.] I'm opposed to key escrow because it gives government too much control of my privacy and because it gives potential enemies other than the government (such as criminals who want to get into my finances) a cheaper target than strong encryption. Understanding precisely how the government claims they're protecting my rights is important to me, so that I can tell them and anybody else willing to listen how they're not. Jim Gillogly Sterday, 8 Astron S.R. 1994, 20:46