At 1:34 PM 7/13/96, Deranged Mutant wrote:
Saw Jamie(?) Gorelick, Dep. Attny Gen. on CSPAN2 talking about needs for key escrow. Emphasized the what if people lose their keys, or someone dies, or if an employee steals company secrets & encrypts them... rather than the usual what if terrorists use crypto line (though she did mention that too).
Guess they're taking a new tack to sell it to the public. A lot of bunkum... (project left to the reader how these can be handled in a non-GAK manner).
And as we all know, having discussed this many times, even if one buys these arguments for the advantages of key escrow, THEY DO NOT APPLY TO COMMUNICATIONS! That is, imagine Alice and Bob communicating over some channel. Alice has files on her computer. Putatively, if she dies, leave her company, whatever, it is desired to reconstruct these files. Fine. A potential use for key escrow. (If voluntary, of course.) But what does this have to do with a channel between Alice and Bob? Why should the keys for this channel ever need to be escrowed for the reasons Gorelick cites? After all, Alice has the files she sent stored locally, and Bob presumably has the same files he received. There is essentially no rationale for escrowing the keys of a transient communication. The Administration and even cryptologists apologizing for GAK (who ought to know better) are curiously silent on this rebuttal to their claims. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."