Re: Another Son of Clipper discussion paper

["Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>]

J.G. on "proposed escrow techniques":
>In order to help make most productive use of the limited time
>available at the upcoming meeting and to better focus
>deliberation, the following criteria are being distributed for
>discussion purposes.  Since it is important that final criteria
>be clear, straightforward, consistent, and implementable, please
>review these draft criteria and be prepared to discuss
>how they may be refined and made more specific.

could someone explain to me why the passive voice is being used
in this proposal? who is proposing this criteria?

there is a saying "he who appeases an alligator does so in hopes
of being eaten last".

J.G., where did this list of proposal items come from? from you?
are you a private researcher? if so, how do you justify this list?
I mean, I can imagine someone from the NSA coming up with something
this specific and restrictive, but frankly I find it in rather
poor taste for private, unaffiliated researchers trying to
bargain with the NSA. there is a clear-cut right to encryption in
a free society, and anything less is a compromise with totalitarianism
IMHO.

IMHO no genuine self-respecting cypherpunk would be involved in any kind
of discussions involving government key escrow, unless to go as
an agent provocateur. the whole issue lends an "aura of legitimacy"
to an issue that has absolutely none. its like the Perl shirt--
as I have said many times, as long as people argue about the 
precise legality of the code, they are *losing* the battle with the
NSA and playing into their hand and exactly the kind of paranoia
over cryptography use they are trying to cultivate.

--Vlad Nuri