[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
GAK over GAP
At 9:07 PM -0700 9/17/97, [email protected] wrote:
>This seems to ignore a possible worst-case scenario, in which the only
>products which are ultimately approved wrap the key using a special law
>enforcement key, for example. If the Powers that be can mandate "escrow"
>--- really GAP, Gov't Access to Plaintext --- then it can be mandated to
>take a particular form that is defined to be tractable.
By the way, I hope this "GAP," or "government access to plaintext," term
does not spread too widely. (A couple of people were using it at the
Saturday Cypherpunks meeting.)
While perhaps technically correct, it loses some of the simplicity of the
"government access to keys" meme. And people already understand what "keys"
are...trying to explain "plaintext" to lay audiences is another barrier to
getting our point across.
Besides, I'm not entirely convinced that the proposed versions of unSAFE
won't also give access to keys.
So I suggest we stick to GAK. It also has the right onomotopoetic
etymology, which GAP surely does not have.
The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."