[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: My chat with Goeff Greiveldinger

On Sun, 15 Oct 1995 [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > Effectively the potential for misuse is increased by virtue of the 
> > increased numbers of officals (commercial and public) who have access to 
> > the material.
> Does he mean mandatory commercial key escrow (as in clipper keys held
> by credit agencies?) Or something totally voluntary but standardized
> by the gov? 

The problem exists in both these examples.

> Of course it all depends on exactly why they really want the escrow anyway.
> If people will encrypt a second time with tomorrow's pgp, why should anyone
> care? 

When you see a glaring hole in argument for a government program, you 
should smell the stench of fish in the air.  That is the section of the 
puzzle that is being hidden until a politically "ripe" time to stick it 
in place.  Here that piece is, obviously, banning tomorrow's pgp.

> All you'd single encrypt for would be your income tax and the 
> financial records you're already required by law to keep (I'm sure I've
> misunderstood this. Can't be so useless.). I know that's not a particularily
> diplomatic carry-over from the debated-to-death clipper thing, but really,
> except as PR, why DO they still take this seriously? (unless you want to 
> be paranoid about a ban, hmm, nevermind, debated-to-death)

I'm not so sure it's paranoid.  You have trial baloons floating all 
over.  Freeh is a prime example, and no one is screaming loudly enough to 
shoot down his blump.  That's a big'ole green light for regulators.> 

"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information