Re: Notes from NIS&T Key Escrow Export conference.

>I hope this gets to you before the conference is over. I would REALLY
>like to hear the government response to the question:

>"If keys are escrowed, what purpose does a 64 bit limit serve?"

I thought that Bruce Schneier (sp?) had a good point at DefCon:
(something like:) "The US Government thinks that there is a type
of criminal smart enough to use encryption and dumb enough to 
use encryption provided by the US Government..."(lots of applause).

I think that is a good point.  Of course, if all non-escrowed
encryption techniques were made illegal, then the criminals would
just have another broken law under their belt if they used
strong encryption.  After all, an outlaw is an outlaw because
he has broken laws, so what sense does it make to make more
laws for him to break?  Hmph.  

Also, semi unrelated: How do the copyright, pornography, and
California Penal Code 502.7 laws fit in with the first
ammendment?

[Please send a cc: of any replies to dr261@cleveland.freenet.edu
because I am no longer on cypherpunks )-:  I can't handle the
mail volume any longer now that I have homework to do.. <g>]

--
Tobin Fricke (aka LightRay)       The Digital Forest BBS (714)586-6142
dr261@kanga.ins.cwru.edu          KE6WHF Amateur Radio, 1:103/925 fido

Tobin T Fricke wrote:

> I think that is a good point.  Of course, if all non-escrowed
> encryption techniques were made illegal, then the criminals would
> just have another broken law under their belt if they used
> strong encryption.  After all, an outlaw is an outlaw because
> he has broken laws, so what sense does it make to make more
> laws for him to break?  Hmph.  

Exactly. As someone recently pointed out, the practical result
would only be to define a new class of single-crime criminals
(cypherpunks/cyphercriminals).

In my .se perspective this is emphasized by our penalty system.
In the foreseeable future (10 years?) they would never get away
with a harsher penalty for using un-GAKed crypto than a moderate
fine. To 'real' criminals, who usually don't have open assets to
forfeit (and the current praxis is then to forget about it after
a few years) and no reputation as law-abiders to defend, it would
be a joke, of course.

Mats