Date: Thu, 07 Sep 1995 18:42:06 -0500 To: cypherpunks@toad.com From: terrell@sam.neosoft.com (Buford Terrell) Subject: Re: GAK

Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 21:25:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>

Subject: Re: GAK

On Fri, 1 Sep 1995, Timothy C. May wrote:

...

At 10:56 PM 9/1/95, Buford Terrell wrote:

...

If you've ever watched Not_at_all_Funny Home Videos or any of the American Urinal school of tabloid television, you soon start feeling that the real threat to privacy is not the guvmint, but all of the yoyos with their little cam corders running around pointing them at people.

Security cameras in ATMS and at airline ticket counters do more to threaten you privacy than do FIBBIE wiretaps, and PGP won't protect you from them. (and usually neither will the courts).

I absolutely agree with this, though this doesn't mean I'll stop worrying about the government's plans for key escrow (GAK), about limits on key lengths, or about other efforts to thwart strong security.

I, of course, know of the "dislike" of GAK here. I am curious to know, however, if the "dislike" is because government would have access under any circumstances or if the primary worry is that government will cheat and get access when most would agree that they shouldn't (either by the judge "cheating" or a TLA stealing it).

In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable??

EBD

In my case, it's simply a matter of principle: the government has no right to know what I'm saying. Search warrants may allow them to get to "things" that I have, but the First and Fifth amendments make words sacred. If the government can eavesdrop on my conversation, then my speech is no longer free. A review board consisting of cypherpunks has no more right to listen to my private conversations than does the FBI, so I would not agree to that proposal either. --buford