Re: Comments on binding cryptography (1)

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

Bert-Jaap Koops wrote:
> Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> wrote:

[snip]

> > So where in the U.S. are you gonna get TRP's who will not *ever*
> > "leak" your files to an interested agency without proper warrant?
> [and]
> > They sure as hell don't trust us, now do they?

> This indicates exactly our difference of opinion, which I noticed
> already in my posting. We have different views on governments, so be
> it.

[snip]

> If you can tell me exactly how criminals can get around the
> cryptographic protocol in the way the proposal tries to prevent
> (unilateral fraud), I very much would like to hear so. If you mean
> criminals can agree to use superencryption (or PGP for that matter),
> I don't deny that, as you might have noticed.

So Bert, let's just call a spade a spade, eh?  Since you readily agree 
that organized criminals probably won't use binding crypto, and that 
TRP's will probably leak our info to spy "agencies" and so on, then that 
would make your system yet another of those programs that can't monitor 
organized crime directly, but instead harasses non-criminal citizens in 
the hope that the agencies can eventually get to the criminals via an 
indirect connection, i.e., the citizen happens to buy something at a web 
site run by Crime, Inc. (assuming that Crime, Inc. is not in fact just 
another agency-run sting operation).

As far as fraud is concerned, my main concern is that important (or any) 
documents etc. are not forged, including my personal communications.  
This is particularly important to prevent frame-ups, which run rampant 
in the U.S.  I suppose they don't frame people in your country.  Well, 
it's public knowledge that the Justice Dept. does this sort of thing 
here, so knowing that, are you still suggesting we trust them, simply 
because you trust your government?  Or are you suggesting that with all 
of this new technology, that the U.S. Justice Dept. will evolve into a 
more ethical agency like your govt. allegedly has, instead of the other 
way around?