Re: No SKE in Daytona and other goodies
From: Aron Freed What is the difference if a big company subjects its employees to a key-escrow system or if the government does it with the people. If you think about it, the government could coerce the company into reading through information being passed back and forth.... ................................................. With a private company, you can negotiate with the owners, or leave. With the government, you have no choice. If the governors decide to coerce a company into complicity with surveillance over internal correspondence, it can do this anyway by other means - that is, it can get access over any material it deems necessary for "legitimate law enforcement needs", even hard-copy files. The desire for absolute control isn't limited to governments, and it doesn't originate in the institution, but in the psychology of the beholder. Blanc
What is the difference if a big company subjects its employees to a key-escrow system or if the government does it with the people. If you think about it, the government could coerce the company into reading through information being passed back and forth.... .................................................
With a private company, you can negotiate with the owners, or leave. With the government, you have no choice.
There is an additional difference which I believe has been implicit in most of the discussion on this issue: When we talk about a company escrowing the keys of its employees, we mean the company escrows the keys of encrypted communications used *for company business and on "company time"*, not necessarily all keys utilized for all communications by the employees. I suppose a company could try to restrict its employees further, but as Blanc notes, you can leave the company a lot easier than you can leave the country. -- Jeff
participants (2)
-
Blanc Weber -
Jeff Barber