At 2:37 PM -0700 7/14/96, jim bell wrote:
At 10:17 AM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
At 7:05 AM -0700 7/13/96, Deranged Mutant wrote:
This is particularly problematic... if the mainland Chinese gov't requested a key from a N.Amercian or European (or even UN controlled) escrow agency, who is to say it isn't really for political reasons (even though they may claim the persons are drug smugglers)?
Or what if the 'crime' was, say, discussing Mormon beliefs, which is illegal in Singapore (and I think Russia as well)?
Or what if some terrorist was using keys escrowed in a country that sponsered terrorist acts?
Your best shot would be to make sure the part about the system being voluntary was hard-wired into any legislation or rule-making.
Wrong. Our "best shot" is to ensure that no "key escrow" legislation is adopted, and moreover export restrictions on crypto are eliminated.
Nope. That's some people's preferred shot, but may not be the best one or even a realistic one. It's certainly a partisan political advocacy (in the sense that people are partisan about this issue, not in the sense of a particular political party). Yet that attitude didn't get any legislation to stop Clipper I. My point was very simple--if the government is going to say a system is voluntary, make them put it in writing in the rules or legislation. We failed to do that with Clipper I (when they said in non-rulesmaking statements that they had no intention of making escrow mandatory--but nobody said "OK. Put it in writing as a formal policy."). As a result, many in government even at the higher policy-making levels are still calling for mandatory escrow. Had it been in the rules, it's less likely they could have overtly gone against a rules-making covenant/compromise. It's simple pragmatic regulatory politics. It's how the system works, and using the system itself to achieve one's goals is one of the more powerful techniques around. You don't have to like it, but you do have to decide whether you'd rather be "right" or get the result. David