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

Speaking for myself only, of course, mandatory key escrow under *any* circumstances is a Bad Thing. I don't want anyone to have my secret key/passphrase, even if 'anyone' consists of n respected cypherpunks. (How are we supposed to tell whether they're LE, anyway? I possess a high degree of confidence, for example, that Tim May is not an undercover spook. But that doesn't stop various tentacles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H anonymous posters from expressing assertions to the contrary.) If I *give* my key to an escrow agent, of course, that's a different story. ("Mr. Cheatem, in the event of my death or disappearance, please decrypt this file with the enclosed key and fax it to the Washington Post.") But I certainly don't want to allow my key to reside with an agent who could be forced to turn it over on the basis of a court order. Sorry if I'm repeating an earlier discussion. Mark -- Mark Contois * The Lenox Group * Boston, MA * http://www.lenox.com/~mark/ Finger for PGP public key * Stellar Crisis: http://www.lenox.com/games/sc Cypherpunks: Share and deploy ********* NSA: Go stick your head in a pig.

On Sun, 3 Sep 1995 21:25:26 -0400 (EDT), Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net> wrote: } } 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). You leave out something here when you say `the judge "cheating"'. Most of the proposals and draft legislation include words like "or by other lawful authority" along with the provisions empowering judges to grant access to keys. Some versions will list various combinations of the Attorney General, Director of {TLA}, etc, as explicitly empowered. Other versions don't explicate the phrase, perhaps trusting that those with the need will already know where their lawful authority lies -- maybe in an anti-terrorist Executive Order; maybe in legislation authorizing military support in drug interdiction; perhaps in their organization's charter to protect "national security". Part of the concern is that spooks will have routine access to keys without any cheating -- no stealing or bent judges will be required. The War on Drugs, the War on Firearms, the War on Terrorists (on Money Lauderers, on Pedophiles, on Spies) are just too important. } In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of } non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable?? This would not be acceptable to the government. Very many sincere, patriotic government agents believe they currently have the right and the responsibility to monitor the civilians' possibly-illegal activities. Your hypothetical review board of cypherpunks would unacceptably limit their established right to gather evidence and intelligence. Investigations too sensitive to mention here, would be crippled. Unless of course, you intended that "or by other lawful authority" would be included in your scheme? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Lou Poppler <lwp@mail.msen.com> | "Understanding is a three-edged :: :: http://www.msen.com/~lwp/ | sword..."-- Ambassador Kosh, Babylon5:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

In article <Pine.D-G.3.91.950903212120.8430B-100000@dg.thepoint.net>, bdavis@thepoint.net (Brian Davis) wrote:

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).

Speaking only for myself, I would resist government access to my data or property. Court orderd warrant or not. I firmly believe that the majority of "lawful" acts the goverment in its various incarnations commits every day is in violation of not only the US Constitution, but of the natural rights given to me as part of my humanity. I therefore hold that I have right, if not the duty, to resists these acts in anyway possible, upto and including the use of lethal force. The number of citizens who share this opininon are growing every day. --anon, due to the denoucement of the Bill of Rights by the criminals in high office.