[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