At 04:15 PM 3/13/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote:
Since when is the government intentionally going to let any bill or policy go through that isn't friendly to themselves??? (You don't have to be an anarchist to figure that out!)
Well, it's not surprising, of course, but it DOES seem to be making these assumptions. I wonder what they're gonna do when they start discovering that "all" voluntary escrow system in place have protections far beyond what they've anticipated? That's why I'm more than a little disturbed about the one really bad portion of the Leahy bill: The one that makes using encryption to thwart an investigation a crime. As Mr. Junger observed, and as should be obvious to most of the rest of us, such a section of the bill could turn a key-escrow holder into a criminal if he fails to disclose an encryption system that protects a key, or (worse!) even if he structures his business in such a way as to avoid having the decrypt key for the escrowed key at all. Previously, legally, he could probably have claimed innocence because he had no decrypt-key to disclose, but Leahy's bill would make him guilty even if there was nothing he could do to give them a key.
Nothing is safe from abuse, by the goverment or non-government fols alike. There's always more loopholes to clean up. (Not that this means we shouldn't clean them up... obviously bad policies should be fixed...). Just as no crypto is 100% foolproof, no legal system is 100% abuse-proof.
If I were trying to detect government investigation in such a situation, I would buy a crypto phone, open an "escrow account" on a totally voluntary basis, give them a phony key, and then (as part of the (presumably?) enforceable escrow agreement) insist that they inform me if anybody asks for the key. There is nothing in Leahy's bill which appears to prohibit the escrow agent from informing the key holder of a request/demand for the key; (I would greatly prefer if that was an actual legal requirement that they do inform the key user.) The question is, is this merely an oversight on their part, or are they planning something, or are they assuming an existing law would cover his? The answer doesn't look good. Jim Bell jim bell@pacifier.com