Dammit Adam. I respect your opinion and your knowlege about these issues, but I think that you've been fooled by Minitru's machinations. Minitru would _like_ for the world's businessmen to be presented with a choice between "brittle" crypto-- private keys held solely by owners, plaintext available solely to recipient, where every forgotten password, missed keystroke or disgruntled saboteur means the company loses valuable data permanently-- or GAKked crypto where these problems of brittleness are solved by Big Brother paternally providing backups when you find yourself in need. In reality neither of these is an acceptable alternative for serious use of strong crypto in business. Escrow is a valuable business concept, which was invented by businessmen centuries ago and has been used ever since because it provides significant value to the participants who voluntarily enter into the escrow contracts. In the context of the information age and crypto, escrow will be one of the basic building blocks of the new era, both for basic business purposes-- serving the same purpose that escrow has always served but with heightened importance to pseudonymous, global commerce-- and for building cryptosystems which are robust in the context of data being shared among many people (e.g. a company). The issue is not how many people are given access to your keys or your data. The issue is whether you maintain your right to control who those people are (including, but not limited to, your right to decide that you will be the only person with access), or whether others with delusions of grandeur and obedient police forces can compel you or trick you into giving them access. Don't let Minitru continue to confuse the issue-- you'll be left with nothing but false alternatives. Escrow is good and necessary and inevitable-- ask any businessman. GAK is not escrow. Escrow is not GAK. Regards, Zooko