At 8:08 PM 11/30/95, hallam@w3.org wrote:
Folks, lay of Netscape on this one. _EVERYONE_ is doing Terissa for the feds to use themselves. There are reporting requirements (FOI) which most people on this list seem to enjoy which make the privacy issue moot. There are other people who do not want to have non escrowed data flowing over their internal nets, nuclear installations etc.
Ah, but Jim Clark's comments were as follows, and indicate that the issue is the _government_ reading _private Net communications_: ---section of interview or speech with/by Jim Clark of Netscape, emphasis added by me--- To secure Net communications, the government will need to have access to private data exchanges ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ using what is known as a key escrow security system, said Clark. He added that an invincible security system for the Net is possible, but such asystem won't be built unless the government ^^^^^^^^^^ has a stake in it. "That's where key escrow comes in," said Clark. Key escrow is a controversial security system advocated by the Clinton administration that gives the government access to private Net communications. It uses public key cryptography, a system ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in which messages are coded and decoded using a set of private and public keys. In key escrow, the private key is held by both the individual or group and the government. The government can ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ use the key ostensibly to read messages for intelligence and national security reasons. ---end of section--- This is not then just an issue of supporting voluntary key escrow for corporations, nuclear installations, germ warfare labs, and the Church of Scientology, this is GAK, pure and simple. Phill, very few of us are opposed to the voluntary use of escrow schemes. I, myself, would be interested in a robust system wherein my lawyer, for example, could have a "duplicate key" to some of my files. We have discussed this issue many times. Truly voluntary key escrow means that the criteria described above by Jim Clark, that government access to private communications is "where key escrow comes in," would be impossible to achieve. Clearly, the type of key escrow being supported by Jim Clark, Dorothy Denning, David Sternlight, Stuart Baker, and others is hardly voluntary.
Key escrow is not bad in itself. It is the idea that individuals be forced to use it for private conversations that is the bad idea.
Carefully read Jim Clark's direct quotes and the views attributed to him in the article.
If people want to argue "make the technology avaliable and it will be abused" then let them. Just remember that we normally argue the other side of the case.
No, the issue is that the proposal is explicitly GAK, not a voluntary system. Details of deployment are of course murky, and this firestorm may help to kill it for now, but the issue is clearly that Jim Clark is saying the government needs to be able to read private communications and that key escrow is needed. Given that he is the Chairman of Netscape, this is worrisome. --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."