The Focus on Clipper Details Plays into Their Hands
I believe the focus on Clipper/Skipjack details and technical issues plays into the hands of those who want to deploy these systems. * By concentrating on issues of key length, escrow details, availability of the chips, etc., attention is shifted from the real issue--the mandatory use of Clipper (probably) and why this is so wrong--to the issue of _practicality_. * If the issue becomes _practicality_ instead of _ethicality_, then we ultimately lose, I fear. Any criticisms we successfully raise can be more or less responded to by the NSA, Denning, Sternlight, and so on. Then we'll look for new practical problems, and the chase will continue. Meanwhile, Clipper will be that much furhter along. * My response when people ask me about arcane details of key length, family keys, etc., is to just _snort_ and shake my head and say: "Who cares? I don't plan to use it." * I'm really not slamming those on this list who are actual experts on the Clipper system, as much as anyone outside the NSA can be of course. Their intelligent comments, their poking of holes, and so forth, has been useful. * My concern is that too much attention can be focussed on a fundamentally wrong idea, much like the syndrome of the pilot of an aircraft staring at his altimeter and tapping it furiously as he crashes. * If, for example, the Cypherpunks and others help to compile a list of questions about Clipper (and recall that we did just that about a year ago) and then these questions are answered or otherwise dealt with, where does this leave us? In my opinion, the very notion that one's private keys have to "escrowed" with the local cops is ethically flawed. If the proposal were that house keys had to be escrowed, or that personal diaries had to be escrowed, would we be debating the technical details of what kinds of envelopes the diaries would be sealed in? Granted, Cypherpunks is a techncally-oriented group, more so than legally or politically oriented (though most of us are politically aware and motivated by ideology), and so we have a store of knowledge about crypto that most folks don't have. Hence a focus on Clipper's arcane details is to be expected. But let's be sure it doesn't divert us away from a prinicple rejection of the whole concept of key escrow. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes: I believe the focus on Clipper/Skipjack details and technical issues plays into the hands of those who want to deploy these systems. ... But let's be sure it doesn't divert us away from a prinicple rejection of the whole concept of key escrow.
I agree that focussing on the technical side is a diversion, and I have been a major offender here lately. But I also think it's important that we understand what it is we're opposed to. When challenged by an articulate LE spokesperson in front of people we want to influence, if we blurt out things about 40 bits being half of 80, or about acknowledged trapdoors in Skipjack, or hogwash about pre-or post-encrypting on one side or the other of Clipper, we won't be taken seriously -- so I think it's important to counter misinformation with hard information when possible. [And yes, I did misstate myself a bit on the 80-bit halves stuff... sorry.] I'm opposed to key escrow because it gives government too much control of my privacy and because it gives potential enemies other than the government (such as criminals who want to get into my finances) a cheaper target than strong encryption. Understanding precisely how the government claims they're protecting my rights is important to me, so that I can tell them and anybody else willing to listen how they're not. Jim Gillogly Sterday, 8 Astron S.R. 1994, 20:46
participants (2)
-
Jim Gillogly -
tcmay@netcom.com