Is Adam Back falling for one of Minitru's tricks?

[Zooko Journeyman <zooko@xs4all.nl>]

Dammit Adam.  I respect your opinion and your knowlege about
these issues, but I think that you've been fooled by Minitru's
machinations.


Minitru would _like_ for the world's businessmen to be 
presented with a choice between "brittle" crypto-- private keys
held solely by owners, plaintext available solely to recipient,
where every forgotten password, missed keystroke or disgruntled
saboteur means the company loses valuable data permanently-- or
GAKked crypto where these problems of brittleness are solved by
Big Brother paternally providing backups when you find yourself
in need.


In reality neither of these is an acceptable alternative for 
serious use of strong crypto in business.  Escrow is a 
valuable business concept, which was invented by businessmen 
centuries ago and has been used ever since because it 
provides significant value to the participants who voluntarily
enter into the escrow contracts.  In the context of the 
information age and crypto, escrow will be one of the basic 
building blocks of the new era, both for basic business 
purposes-- serving the same purpose that escrow has always 
served but with heightened importance to pseudonymous, global 
commerce-- and for building cryptosystems which are robust in
the context of data being shared among many people (e.g. a 
company).


The issue is not how many people are given access to your keys
or your data.  The issue is whether you maintain your right to
control who those people are (including, but not limited to, 
your right to decide that you will be the only person with 
access), or whether others with delusions of grandeur and 
obedient police forces can compel you or trick you into giving
them access.


Don't let Minitru continue to confuse the issue-- you'll be 
left with nothing but false alternatives.  Escrow is good and 
necessary and inevitable-- ask any businessman.  GAK is not
escrow.  Escrow is not GAK.


Regards,

Zooko