At 11:35 AM 5/22/96 -0400, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote:

Declan McCullagh and Gilmore have already provided a brief summary of the doc, here are a few thoughts I sent to some others last night:

[schtuff deleted]

So Clipper III is a bit meaner and leaner. If Clipper I would have sunk because of sheer clumsiness, a sleeker ship carrying the same load will now be developed by the free market. The load is the assumption that citizens can be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

I didn't notice any specific reference to the difference between materials encrypted for long-term storage or transmission (data, email) and on the other hand audio telephone communications, the original stated application for the Clipper chip. I can't see any reason that an individual would want the key to his own crypto telephone keys escrowed; unlike the key for data on a computer, which at least theoretically might be lost, the cryptophone data is by definition lost as soon as it is used. Therefore, I can see no argument which would make a person support this key escrow for that purpose. Since the whole system is supposed to be "voluntary", who is going to accept this? Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com