Further Trends in Key Escrow?

I'm watching a CNBC report about the NASDAQ market and proposed fixes to certain alleged abuses about stock recommendations, bid-ask spreads, brokers, etc. One of the "industry" proposals involving taping the phone calls of NASDAQ brokers. (The proposal: 10% of all calls to customers would be recorded for later review.) It occurs to me that wider taping/interception of communications could be a consequence of a wide move toward "key escrow." And not just by governments. Once communications are "escrowed," the infrastructure for gaining access to communications is available. Thus, professional associations may request access, as with the NASDAQ talk of tapping the phone calls of brokers. (To be clear, this is a tapping system which NASDAQ dealers would have to agree to deploy in order to keep their affiliation; as this is ostensibly a voluntary, non-coerced, private arrangement, I don't argue it should be outlawed. I don't like it, but my concern is elsewhere: namely, the temptation to use a GAK system for these and similar purposes.) The whole infrastructure of mandatory voluntary key escrow could allow all sorts of special interest groups to ask for access and insist upon it with their members, customers, and affiliates. A danger to think about. Even if the non-government gakkings are ostensibly voluntary, the effect would be a sea change in expectations of communications privacy, with the key escrow infrastructure used to give access to formerly secure communications to growing numbers of groups. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

TCM:
I'm watching a CNBC report about the NASDAQ market and proposed fixes to certain alleged abuses about stock recommendations, bid-ask spreads, brokers, etc.
One of the "industry" proposals involving taping the phone calls of NASDAQ
brokers. (The proposal: 10% of all calls to customers would be recorded for later review.)
this reminds me of something else. the stock exchange as it now stands is not the paradigm of true capitalism as some would have others believe. in fact I see it as the paradigm of what might be called "middleman capitalism", a version of capitalism that is rapidly diminishing and disappearing in the onslaught of the information age. essentially, in the new version of capitalism, middlemen who do not *add*value* to the delivery of a product are going to be increasingly cut out of the loop. I am not saying *all* middlemen will be cut out, but many that now exist will be. in my opinion, the *stock*broker* as his job is now defined is in many ways the classic middleman that does not necessarily add value to the information that flows through his hands. if he is just an agent for carrying out the demands of clients, then I'd say that this role is going to disappear as markets become more automated, or rather capital moves toward stock exchanges that diminish this overhead. however, there are many brokers that add far many more services than mere blind investor response, such as analyzing company profitability, forecasting, etc-- these are adding value imho. I think the end result of the information age is going to be something that could be regarded as the ultimate capitalist market-- something that eliminates all "unnecessary" middlemen. I suspect the stock exchanges of the future will *not* be regulated because they *cannot* be. it will be a matter of buyers and sellers choosing the systems that best suit them regardless of what governments feel is appropriate, fair, or whatever. its interesting how the restrictions on stock buying and selling are becoming quite orwellian in the way they are designed to limit mere information transfer in many cases, it seems. TCM has written about this far better than I could in previous posts. ("inside trading" restrictions). I think we are going to be moving toward new stock markets that are diverse (i.e. not only one of them) that have different kinds of rules for buying and selling. I suspect they will be largely automated, because the market pressure is to move in the direction of eliminating unnecessary overhead. isn't a roomful of men chaotically screaming "buy" and "sell" orders at each other the epitome of what is *not* represented by the information age? the entire process could be reduced to electrons flowing through wires. so I think what we are seeing are the last gasps of pre-information-age economics in which governments feel they have to do things like regulate stock markets for the concept of buying and selling to work right and be "fair". I'm not saying that unfairness doesn't exist in capitalism, but I am saying that increasingly these decisions of what actually constitutes "unfairness" are going to be made by the economic players involved and not bureacrats in governments. eventually we are going to find that money is actually a special kind of information network that helps a society control the allocation of capital and human resources-- i.e., allocating anything with the property of "scarcity". (for more ideas on "middleman capitalism" vs. "pure captalism" read Bill Gates' _Road_Ahead_.)

On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
I'm watching a CNBC report about the NASDAQ market and proposed fixes to certain alleged abuses about stock recommendations, bid-ask spreads, brokers, etc.
One of the "industry" proposals involving taping the phone calls of NASDAQ brokers. (The proposal: 10% of all calls to customers would be recorded for later review.)
Many phone calls are recorded already, not under the premise of law enforcement (or some sort of legal regulation), but under the notion of quality assurance. At what point does QA become "call escrowing" and does the SEC's regulatory powers make it so it can't "escrow" calls for quality assurance purposes? If Merril Lynch decides to record calls for QA purposes, can the SEC subpeona those "records" if it suspects illegal activity? If everyone's willing to patronize those businesses that record calls for "QA" purposes (I tried not to and then gave up since nobody else seemed to give a shit), will the SEC's quality assurance efforts be met with the same lack of care by the consumers? Or maybe they'll actually *LIKE* it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Just as the strength of the Internet is |Mark Aldrich | |chaos, so the strength of our liberty |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | |depends upon the chaos and cacophony of |maldrich@grci.com | |the unfettered speech the First Amendment|MAldrich@dockmaster.ncsc.mil | |protects - District Judge Stewart Dalzell| | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich@grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Mark O. Aldrich
-
tcmay@got.net
-
Vladimir Z. Nuri