[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Denning backs away from GAK
Tim May writes:
>
> At 9:54 AM -0700 7/31/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >In <v03007803b0067a1a1c9e@[168.161.105.191]>, on 07/31/97
> > at 01:22 PM, Declan McCullagh <[email protected]> said:
> >
> >>BTW, Will R did a piece a month or so ago on Denning's shifting stance.
> >>Maybe I should call her up and press her for details.
> >
> >Well after that piece was done I recall he making statments supporting
> >some of the more Daconian bills floating around DC.
> >
> >I serriously doubt that she has changed here stance on any of the current
> >Inet issuse mearly putting a different spin on them.
>
> And her "second thoughts" on GAK were not based on a principled repudiation
> of the concept of "escrowing" keys, or on Constitutional grounds, but only
> on the grounds that her study did not show that many criminal cases were
> much affected by the lack of key escrow.
Her support for GAK was also on 'utilitarian' grounds- she beleived
law enforcement's claims that crypto prevented them from catching criminals.
This new study sounds like it pokes large holes in Freeh etc's main
justification of GAK. That's just fine with me. Ms Denning may change
her mind again later, but this is useful right now. Especially since
Denning was the only respected cryptographer who sided with GAK.
> I never trust utilitarian arguments on things of this importance.
Others do, especially those "driven to compromise" folk up on the hill
in Washington.
Yea, it'd be great if she suddenly got religion and started upholding
the constitution, but this is still better than I would have hoped for.
--
Eric Murray [email protected] [email protected]
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF