Re: No SKE in Daytona and other goodies

From: Timothy C. May

"If Microsoft has never met with NIST/NSA or Denning or TIS on this matter,
and was only pursuing SKE research on its own initiative, without any
incentives or threats from the government, then I will withdraw my
speculations and cheer Microsoft on."
...................................................

And then you can say:	Blanc was right all along;
			I really had nothing to worry about.
			Signed:  Tim C May


"We need to see a public debate on software key escrow, regardless of
Microsoft's involvement one way or another. And we shouldn't wait until the
press conference is held to announce the program!"
.......................................................

I would like to see more explanations on key escrow, myself.   To me, 
the issue is control:  who gets it, who excercises it, who will try to 
prevent an individual from their right to exert it.

How does the mere existence of a system of key escrow necessitate that 
no one will ever again have the means to secure their privacy?   I do 
understand the difference in the situation of an individual in a 
corporate environment using a given software environment, vs the 
individual at home with their own pc trying to access the internet & 
send email.

But you all write code:  you have ideas on how to deal with this, right?

Do you think that having created a means to an end, that it will be 
impossible to retain ownership and control of it?  In the present 
political atmosphere, there are many ownership issues being threated.  
The government's position is to take away the means to an end, thereby 
preventing the whole problem of having to think about who has the right 
to use it or not.

Do you think that preventing companies from implementing their own key 
escrow schemes, this will eliminate the problem of having to fight with 
the government over the keys?

Blanc

On Fri, 29 Jul 1994, Blanc Weber wrote:

> From: Timothy C. May
> 
> "If Microsoft has never met with NIST/NSA or Denning or TIS on this matter,
> and was only pursuing SKE research on its own initiative, without any
> incentives or threats from the government, then I will withdraw my
> speculations and cheer Microsoft on."
> ...................................................
> 
> And then you can say:	Blanc was right all along;
> 			I really had nothing to worry about.
> 			Signed:  Tim C May
> 
> 
> "We need to see a public debate on software key escrow, regardless of
> Microsoft's involvement one way or another. And we shouldn't wait until the
> press conference is held to announce the program!"
> .......................................................
> 
> I would like to see more explanations on key escrow, myself.   To me, 
> the issue is control:  who gets it, who excercises it, who will try to 
> prevent an individual from their right to exert it.
> 
> How does the mere existence of a system of key escrow necessitate that 
> no one will ever again have the means to secure their privacy?   I do 
> understand the difference in the situation of an individual in a 
> corporate environment using a given software environment, vs the 
> individual at home with their own pc trying to access the internet & 
> send email.
> 
> But you all write code:  you have ideas on how to deal with this, right?
> 
> Do you think that having created a means to an end, that it will be 
> impossible to retain ownership and control of it?  In the present 
> political atmosphere, there are many ownership issues being threated.  
> The government's position is to take away the means to an end, thereby 
> preventing the whole problem of having to think about who has the right 
> to use it or not.
> 
> Do you think that preventing companies from implementing their own key 
> escrow schemes, this will eliminate the problem of having to fight with 
> the government over the keys?
> 
> Blanc

What is the difference if a big company subjects its employees to a 
key-escrow system or if the government does it with the people. If you 
think about it, the government could coerce the company into reading 
through information being passed back and forth....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=- 	YABBS - telnet phred.pc.cc.cmu.edu 8888                       -=-
-=-    								      -=-
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 15:16:47 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Aron Freed <s009amf@discover.wright.edu>

   What is the difference if a big company subjects its employees to a 
   key-escrow system or if the government does it with the people. If you 
   think about it, the government could coerce the company into reading 
   through information being passed back and forth....

Employees have the option of not sending personal information through
the company system, instead using a service they hire themselves.  The
people, if subjected to key-escrow in their private communications,
would only have the option of not sending the information via
electronic means if they wanted said info to be out of the range of
snoops.

The government should NOT be viewed similarly to an employer in its
relationship with citizens.  Employees are free to quit and make their
income some other way.