"Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> said: The gist of the whole thread is that voluntary key escrow is acceptable, mandatory key escrow, which GAK apparently is, is very evil. VZN> in other words, we agree that the government does have the VZN> authority to link people to their "official numbers", but we have a VZN> choice about when to use those official numbers in any private VZN> communication, and by law businesses do not ever have to *require* VZN> authentication in this way. the numbers of course would be VZN> required in communication between the individual and government. VZN> the situation is that the government *now* requires that it knows VZN> who we are when we communicate with it in any official VZN> context. therefore I submit that the above system would not take VZN> away any rights, and in fact might lead to privacy advocates being VZN> able to use a massive government key-infrastructure but still VZN> retain communication privacy. in other words, you now have the VZN> government actually supporting your cryptographic freedom by giving VZN> you a massive "official" key distribution system you can use any VZN> way you like. No, you are not required to identify yourself to the government when communicating with it in all situations. Certainly, there are many situations when you are required to do so, but there are numerous channels in which anonyminity is permitted, and sometimes even guaranteed. Ironically, most of these are in law enforcement/public safety situations (anonymous tips, whistleblowing, etc). -- #include <disclaimer.h> /* Sten Drescher */ To get my PGP public key, send me email with your public key and Subject: PGP key exchange Key fingerprint = 90 5F 1D FD A6 7C 84 5E A9 D3 90 16 B2 44 C4 F3