Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto: Gore Restates

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 01:47 PM 7/15/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:


>>Despite trying to hide behind the smokescreen of calling the
>>government's GAK position "voluntary," we all know that they are trying to
>>misuse their influence to gently force us to use GAK, if by no other means
>>that forcing the taxpayer to pay for the system as they have done already.
>
>I agree, though I would not have phrased it in such an offensive way. 

Please explain why you think my comment above is phrased "in such an 
offensive way."  Hint:  If I'd really wanted it to be "offensive," I could 
have easily done that.


>This isn't some conspiracy of evil but people with a legitimate policy
>disagreement.

I notice your insertion of the term "legitimate."  As opposed to what?  Do 
you mean that you acknowledge that there is such a thing as an ILLEGITIMATE 
policy disagreement?  How can we tell the difference?

And there goes that word, "policy," again!  Containing with it, the 
assumption that governments (despite ostensible freedom of speech) have some 
sort of authority to regulate encryption.


>>The opponents of GAK, on the other hand, are not denying to anyone the
>right
>>to implement a truly voluntary "key-escrow" system, or more likely many
>>privately operating ones.
>
>I disagree again. It is evident from the effort to shoot down Clipper I,
>which WAS voluntary, that this is another case of your version of
>"voluntary". If an offeror, even the government, offers something voluntary
>and you don't like it, you attempt to suppress it. It's kinda like "freedom
>of speech only for those who agree with me".

Huh?  Developed in secret (secrecy, not merely for the technical details, 
but also for the broad overall concept:  the former might have been 
justifiable to some people, the latter was not!), using stolen tax dollars, 
and presented as a fait accompli to the public.  Oh, one more thing:  
Apparently designed to NOT be able to talk to non-escrowed encryption 
systems, in an obvious attempt to freeze out competition.  The government 
was trying to misuse its influence here.

Obviously some new strange usage of the word "voluntary" that I wasn't 
previously aware of.

>> However, such systems will be a service for the
>>customer, not the government, and the key will almost certainly not be
>>provided to the government on request, and in fact the key will likely be
>>stored in an encrypted form that the government won't be able to use.
>
>To the contrary, business records are always available on legitimate
>subpoena by the government,

There you go again with that word, "legitimate."  Give me an example of an 
"_illegitimate subpoena_," will you?  One that someone is not obligated to 
fulfill.  What?!?  You can't?   Then why did you use the term in what is 
obviously (to you) a redundant fashion?


> and this would include escrowed keys. YOU don't
>have to like it, but it's the law.

Not currently it isn't.  Laws concerning "escrowed keys" haven't been 
written, and in any case since they don't have to be stored in the same 
legal jurisdiction, cooperation with a given set of authorities is not only 
not guaranteed, but isn't wise.   

Besides, the only thing I see in the US Constitution which compels a 
person's participation in and cooperation with a trial is a right of 
defendants to have witnesses appear in their _defense._  I see no 
corresponding right on the part of the prosecution to compel ITS witnesses 
to appear.

And you ignored the part about the ENCRYPTED stored keys.  If they're 
encrypted, then even if they're presented to the police, they won't be able 
to use them, law or no law.  Given a choice, I think most people would 
prefer to use an "escrow agent" (if they chose to use one at all; which I 
doubt) that is either guaranteed to be uncooperative to the government, or 
one which CAN'T be cooperative, because the material it has is not in a form 
useful to the cops.  As long as key-escrow is TRULY "voluntary," in the 
broadest and most accurate sense of the word, market forces will migrate to 
a practice which is best for individual customers as individuals.


>>Quite simply, we do not require your "assent."  You should be trying to get
>>OURS.
>
>"Silence does not constitute assent" to your personal attacks, your policy
>assertions, and what I think to be your misrepresentations of fact. I was
>not speaking of assent to GAK in that sentence.
>
>I think your attempt to pseudospeciate me and create an "us and him"
>situation in this group is bound to fail with those who have paid attention
>to what I think and say, particularly my most recent thinking. On many
>matters we are agreed at bottom. However, I place high value on policy

There you go again with the word, "policy."


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com