Re: "Just say 'No' to key escrow."

: From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@netcom.com>

: Paul Robichaux writes:

: > No doubt. But what does the OS provider gain from including encryption
: > in the OS? At present, customers aren't demanding it. Why add SKE at
: > all when no one's asking for it?

: Ah, the exact question for us to be asking! "Why add SKE at all when
: no one's asking for it?" Indeed.

: Why the upcoming conference on key escrow? Why the representatives
: from Germany, Netherlands, France, etc.?

Because, as I mentioned before but I don't think people understood the
significance, Bill Gates is attempting to create a worldwide network
of about a hundred satellites.  You don't get to do that without
political assistance, and no way is the USG going to let Bill put those
birds up unless they control the technology to snoop on the entire net.

Putting SKE in all microsoft products is doubtless one (though unlikely
all) of the quid pro quos of getting a licence to put up the sky-based
comms network.

G

> Because, as I mentioned before but I don't think people understood the
> significance, Bill Gates is attempting to create a worldwide network
> of about a hundred satellites.  You don't get to do that without
> political assistance, and no way is the USG going to let Bill put those
> birds up unless they control the technology to snoop on the entire net.

This is a relatively inane conspiracy theory. Gates hardly requires any
assistance since the feds were already committed to setting up licenses
in bands that are good for these types of networks. Both the FCC and Hughes
have sped up their efforts towards these systems in recent days.

And the satellite system is not Bill Gates. He is an investor, and a fairly
small one. Gates and McCaw (sp?) gave that venture much more by attaching
their names to it than they did by giving a few of their millions. I seem
to recall Gates' share being 7 megabucks.

> Putting SKE in all microsoft products is doubtless one (though unlikely
> all) of the quid pro quos of getting a licence to put up the sky-based
> comms network.

Jesus people are paranoid. I happen to be of the opinion that A) if escrow
isn't bult into things by the time Chicago, Cairo and Daytona are out it
will be too late and that B) software based escrows are a good thing because
they take the wind out of hardware based encryption efforts and they are
difficult to make mandatory.

JWS

on Fri, 29 Jul 1994 22:32:25 -0400 (EDT)  solman@MIT.EDU wrote:
> Jesus people are paranoid. I happen to be of the opinion that A) if escrow
As a member of the "religious right", I am *NOT* paranoid (at least any more
so than most members of this list :-).  I do make an attempt to screen the
media my children have access to.  I do NOT advocate "sequestering" nor do I
support ANY governmental censorship.

Long live the PFLC!

-- the dave who is tired of these non-crypto rants

       Dave Otto -- dave@marvin.jta.edd.ca.gov -- daveotto@acm.org
   "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"     [the Great Oz]
          finger DaveOtto@ACM.org for PGP 2.6 key  <0x3300e841>
     fingerprint =  78 71 3A 5B FD 8A 9A F1  8F BC E8 6A C7 BD A4 DD

> on Fri, 29 Jul 1994 22:32:25 -0400 (EDT)  solman@MIT.EDU wrote:
> > Jesus people are paranoid. I happen to be of the opinion that A) if escrow
> As a member of the "religious right", I am *NOT* paranoid (at least any more
> so than most members of this list :-).  I do make an attempt to screen the
> media my children have access to.  I do NOT advocate "sequestering" nor do I
> support ANY governmental censorship.

Hey, don't complain to me. I'm the one whose toiling away 12 hours a day on
a system which amongst other things will either:

A) Teach your children to be first rate hackers or

B) give you as much control as you want over what they get off of the net.

JWS