Re: "Key Escrow" --- the very idea

[Mike_Spreitzer.PARC@xerox.com]

> > "Key escrow" is an attempt to implement the
> > cyberspatial analog of search.

> Nope. "Key escrow" is far broader...

The result is certainly broader.  Arguably too broad.  I was simply trying to
say that someone with the narrower motive of trying to implement warranted
searches in cyberspace might reach for key escrow as a solution.  Mainly for
lack of a narrower mechansim.

As I tried to say in paragraph (3), I don't think key escrow has to be
mandatory to have some value (whether it's enough to make it worthwhile is the
essence of the debate).  Nor do I think there's any point in outlawing
unbreakable cryptography --- your worst outlaws would use it anyway.  Also,
outlawing it would be more intrusive than required to implement warranted
searches --- aren't there some relationships (doctor/patient, lawyer/client,
priest/churchgoer) that the courts recognize as sacrosanct?  The only arguable
strategy, I think, would be for society to say "we're going to subsidize the
escrowed key infrastructure so that it will be enough cheaper and more
available that most criminals will opt for it for most usage" --- and rely on
the power of human stupidity to make it pay off.  This requires a comparison of
the cost of that public subsidy against the law enforcement payoff (and a
design for the distribution of who pays how much of that subsidy).  And depends
on being able to make a price and/or availability difference that's
significant.  And while Heinlein warns against underestimating the power of
human stupidity, I must say I wonder how long we could expect that most
criminals will remain insufficiently funded, educated, or motivated to avoid
using the escrowed key infrastructure for incriminating activities.  I'm not
sure how to evaluate any of these.