CDR: Re: Comments on and about e-privacy in Canada

[Adam Shostack]

On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 11:48:40PM -0700, Tim May wrote:

| If Austin is drawing conclusions that we _need_ an SEC, then perhaps 
| the flaws and delays people are reporting for ZKS are indicative of a 
| deeper issue. Maybe ZKS plans to make their system "meet the 
| legitimate needs of law enforcement."

I think the Freedom system meets the "legitimate needs of law
enforcement" today.  They disagree, and would like some back doors
added, which isn't going to happen.

We've met with, and reported on, our meetings with Canadian law
enforcement here.  They understand our position that what we're doing
is protecting the privacy of a great many people, and that adding back 
doors reduces the security and privacy to a degree we don't consider
acceptable.  Under current Canadian law, they can't compel us to
change the system, and, to the best of my knowledge, haven't gone
beyond asking us politely to change.


Adam

PS for the sarcasm impared: This is a disagreement over what are the
"legitimate needs of law enforcement."  We don't have any backdoors in
the system.  Like any system of the magnitude of Freedom, there are
security flaws, which are covered in the "security issues" paper which
Ian and I wrote.  We aren't aware of any flaws worse than the ones
enumerated, and a newer paper will be coming out soonish to add the
results of our research into how to attack the system over the last
year.  (Mostly variations on the first-last system, plus some
improvements in v2, which as Bob mentioned, will be entering beta
soon.)

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume