Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> At 09:46 PM 3/25/96 -0500, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> 
> >An interesting issue, likely to be addressed in future judicial 
> >assistence treaties...
> >
> 
> However, future judicial assistance treaties are meaningless if you store
> your keys anonymously (domestically or internationally) so that even the
> keeper doesn't know he has them or exactly where they are in his pile of keys.

Given the significant contempt charges that can follow a refusal to 
produce items (anonymous or not) this still depends on the absence of 
initial detection.

> In general, I think that we should attack government key escrow on economic
> efficiency grounds by pointing out that it is unlikely that "socialized key
> escrow" would do as good a job as private enterprise key escrow.  The
> Stalinist method of industrial production, is well known for its
> inefficiencies and similar inefficiencies attach to government key escrow.

Here I agree.

> In fact, I suppose that government operation of the identification system
> (drivers' licenses, passports, etc.) in general is also horribly inefficient
> and should be attacked on efficiency grounds.

You might not like what you get in response.  Streamlined and uniform 
identity documents generated at birth and renewed with tax filings would 
be the likeliest efficiency improvement.  An inefficient government 
identification system is to the advantage of the privacy seeker.

> 
> DCF
> 

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"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