Re: GAK

[terrell@sam.neosoft.com (Buford Terrell)]

>Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 21:25:26 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>

>Subject: Re: GAK

>On Fri, 1 Sep 1995, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
>> At 10:56 PM 9/1/95, Buford Terrell wrote:
>> 
>> >If you've ever watched Not_at_all_Funny Home Videos or any of the
>> >American Urinal school of tabloid television, you soon start feeling
>> >that the real threat to privacy is not the guvmint, but all of
>> >the yoyos with their little cam corders running around pointing them
>> >at people.
>> >
>> >Security cameras in ATMS and at airline ticket counters do more
>> >to threaten you privacy than do FIBBIE wiretaps, and PGP won't
>> >protect you from them. (and usually neither will the courts).
>> 
>> I absolutely agree with this, though this doesn't mean I'll stop worrying
>> about the government's plans for key escrow (GAK), about limits on key
>> lengths, or about other efforts to thwart strong security.
>
>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).
>
>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
>
In my case, it's simply a matter of principle: the government has no
right to know what I'm saying.  Search warrants may allow them to
get to "things" that I have, but the First and Fifth amendments make
words sacred.  If the government can eavesdrop on my conversation,
then my speech is no longer free.

A review board consisting of cypherpunks has no more right to listen
to my private conversations than does the FBI, so I would not agree
to that proposal either.

  --buford