Re: The GAK Momentum is Building...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Wed Sep 18 08:48:43 1996
Tim May wrote:

<...>

> (BTW, I predict that the tainted term "key escrow" is now gone from the
> official lexicon. I haven't seen the Clipper IV proposal, but I surmise
> that the baggage the term "key escrow" carries means that some more
> benign-sounding term will be used in the final proposal. Something like
> "Key Recovery System." You heard it here.)

I agree, and hope so. "Key Recovery," while not as Orwellian-sounding as 
"GAK," is a step on the path to honesty WRT the English language, though 
it's important to continually point out, as Tim did in his post, that 
*access* -- rather than just recovery -- is obviously what Mr. Freeh wants.

I'd count this likely change in terminology as a "cypherpunk victory," 
albeit a very small and certainly a very hard-fought one.
JMR


Regards, Jim Ray -- DNRC Minister of Encryption Advocacy

"As govt.s grow arithmetically, corruption grows exponentially."
 -- Ray's Law of official corruption.

 Defeat the Duopoly!             Stop the Browne out.
 Harry Browne for President. Jo Jorgensen for Vice-president.
 http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/   http://www.twr.com/stbo
___________________________________________________________________
PGP id.E9BD6D35 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE  53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8
I will generate a new (and bigger) PGP key-pair on election night.
<mailto:liberty@gate.net> http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray
___________________________________________________________________

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMj/vsG1lp8bpvW01AQFkhwP/XEkJkdXwYsdSM8kn+B3bR/bCDXaKgkIE
p63RgjQ5C60byufXqlqitvuJPMuS19MRxlF7UXsXJXKY6Jm92Q45sQtLICsMqXhP
/iJwDVYaEuDj24cFycsZjZMeT+xxnuy+OCuhKIEgKF6gjh2uEZxbCellCqJ86TPF
XfPiQiTPBDo=
=B2hR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Jim Ray wrote:
> I agree, and hope so. "Key Recovery," while not as Orwellian-sounding as 
> "GAK," is a step on the path to honesty WRT the English language, though 
> it's important to continually point out, as Tim did in his post, that 
> *access* -- rather than just recovery -- is obviously what Mr. Freeh wants.
> 
> I'd count this likely change in terminology as a "cypherpunk victory," 
> albeit a very small and certainly a very hard-fought one.

Nope. It is a Cypherpunk loss. The use of the term "key recovery" for GAK 
now fully obfuscates the distinction between accessing a 
backup copy by the legitimate owner (or his estate, employer, etc.) and 
GAK. Many PKIs will support the former type of key recovery. And for good 
reasons. Thanks to the brainwashers using the same term for GAK, it will 
now become impossible to tell from a basic description of a PKI if it 
supports GAK or not. Furthermore, those who oppose the latter type of key 
recovery (us!), will be pushed further into the fringe by the media 
now being able to mix up our arguments against GAK with arguing against 
true key recovery. [Do you notice the weird constructs I have to use to 
distinguish the two meanings? One of them being new...]

--Lucky

Lucky Green wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Jim Ray wrote:
> I agree, and hope so. "Key Recovery," while not as Orwellian-sounding 
> as "GAK," is a step on the path to honesty WRT the English language,
> though it's important to continually point out, as Tim did in his
> post, that *access* -- rather than just recovery -- is obviously what 
> Mr. Freeh wants.
> I'd count this likely change in terminology as a "cypherpunk victory,"
> albeit a very small and certainly a very hard-fought one.

> Nope. It is a Cypherpunk loss. The use of the term "key recovery" for 
> GAK now fully obfuscates the distinction between accessing a
> backup copy by the legitimate owner (or his estate, employer, etc.)
> and GAK. Many PKIs will support the former type of key recovery. And
> for good reasons. Thanks to the brainwashers using the same term for
> GAK, it will now become impossible to tell from a basic description of 
> a PKI if it supports GAK or not. Furthermore, those who oppose the
> latter type of key recovery (us!), will be pushed further into the
> fringe by the media now being able to mix up our arguments against GAK 
> with arguing against true key recovery. [Do you notice the weird
> constructs I have to use to distinguish the two meanings? One of them 
> being new...]
> --Lucky

My comment: Once the big Corp.'s get used to the new game, they'll put 
the non-critical stuff out there for Mr. Freeh, and for the really 
secret data, if the cops confiscate anything they can't read, the Corp. 
security will put it off on a fall-guy, even as high as the CEO if 
necessary. I just wanna see one case where a federal judge will try to 
bleed a big company for contempt for "refusing" to decode and hand over 
some ostensibly encrypted data. Matter of fact, there are probably cases 
similar to this that have already been through the appeals courts.

In this context, I'm just about to revise the draft at 

http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/planet_clipper.htm

comments welcome.

**Benjamin Bradley Froomkin, b. Sept. 13, 1996, 8 lbs 14.5oz 21.5"**

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | 
U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's hot here.  And humid.

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:

> Lucky Green wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Jim Ray wrote:
> > I agree, and hope so. "Key Recovery," while not as Orwellian-sounding 
> > as "GAK," is a step on the path to honesty WRT the English language,
> > though it's important to continually point out, as Tim did in his
> > post, that *access* -- rather than just recovery -- is obviously what 
> > Mr. Freeh wants.
> > I'd count this likely change in terminology as a "cypherpunk victory,"
> > albeit a very small and certainly a very hard-fought one.
> 
> > Nope. It is a Cypherpunk loss. The use of the term "key recovery" for 
> > GAK now fully obfuscates the distinction between accessing a
> > backup copy by the legitimate owner (or his estate, employer, etc.)
> > and GAK. Many PKIs will support the former type of key recovery. And
> > for good reasons. Thanks to the brainwashers using the same term for
> > GAK, it will now become impossible to tell from a basic description of 
> > a PKI if it supports GAK or not. Furthermore, those who oppose the
> > latter type of key recovery (us!), will be pushed further into the
> > fringe by the media now being able to mix up our arguments against GAK 
> > with arguing against true key recovery. [Do you notice the weird
> > constructs I have to use to distinguish the two meanings? One of them 
> > being new...]
> > --Lucky
> 
> My comment: Once the big Corp.'s get used to the new game, they'll put 
> the non-critical stuff out there for Mr. Freeh, and for the really 
> secret data, if the cops confiscate anything they can't read, the Corp. 
> security will put it off on a fall-guy, even as high as the CEO if 
> necessary. I just wanna see one case where a federal judge will try to 
> bleed a big company for contempt for "refusing" to decode and hand over 
> some ostensibly encrypted data. Matter of fact, there are probably cases 
> similar to this that have already been through the appeals courts.

Several.  Most involve foreign banks refusing to turn over records to U.S.
courts.  Most result in powerfully large fines imposed on banks, often on
a per diem basis.

> 
> 

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li