Re: Analysis of proposed UK ban on use of non-escrowed crypto.

Kent Crispin dribbled syphlyrically:
 
> Like it or not, businesses like -- no, *need* -- key escrow -- company
> secrets can't go down the drain because someone gets hit by a truck.

  An exact quote from some of your earlier posts.
  Are you working from a cheat-sheet?
  Is someone _telling_ you what to say?
  Are they holding your kids hostage and _making_ you say this?
  Is it time for Big Brother to hire some fresh writers?

TruthMonger

On Tue, Apr 01, 1997 at 04:22:01PM -0800, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
> Kent Crispin dribbled syphlyrically:
>  
> > Like it or not, businesses like -- no, *need* -- key escrow -- company
> > secrets can't go down the drain because someone gets hit by a truck.
> 
>   An exact quote from some of your earlier posts.
>   Are you working from a cheat-sheet?
>   Is someone _telling_ you what to say?
>   Are they holding your kids hostage and _making_ you say this?
>   Is it time for Big Brother to hire some fresh writers?

Not my best prose, for sure.  But it is a reflection of sentiments I 
have seen expressed by people in business.

I'm not working from a cheat sheet.  No one is telling me what to say. 
Just like you, I am too totally inconsequential to make it worth
anyone's time to try to make me say anything. 

I am not in favor of GAK, either.  When I talk about companies wanting
key escrow I am speaking from observation, not ideology.  It's sad
that a mailing list that purports to be a bastion of free thought
harbors so many closed minds -- people who don't have the faintest
idea about my beliefs fall all over themselves jumping to conclusions,
apparently because they have become so conditioned to certain
buzzphrases that they no longer think. 

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

Well, after i read this, a quaestion popped into my head?  Would the
governmnet do the same with snail -mail?  But more importantly, does the
governm,ent have the right to even go through your private property? 


On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:36:52 -0800 Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com> writes:
>At 5:43 PM -0800 4/2/97, Timothy C. May wrote:
>>However, key recovery need have no "hooks" by government into it. The
>>attempt by the government to ensure secret access, without even so 
>much as
>>a search warrant, is revealing.
>
>This issue is to me key.  If the government wants any creditability on 
>the
>GAK issue, it will include in any GAK system, a provision for 
>independent
>auditing, after the fact, of intercepts.  (BTW - I will still oppose 
>GAK,
>but some of my best arguments will be taken away.)
>
>It seems to me that once you swollen the idea that government has, 
>under
>any circumstances, a right to read your mail, there are two issues.
>
>(1) Is the proscribed procedure fair?
>(2) Did the government follow the procedure?
>
>(My opposition to GAK is based on my belief that there are no star 
>chamber
>proceedings which are fair.  The ability to confront the witnesses 
>against
>you and compel witnesses to testify for you are key here.)
>
>However, auditing only addresses the second issue.  There are many 
>problems
>with auditing the government's use of its access.  One key one is, who 
>is
>the auditor?  At CFP97, I suggested that the press would make a good
>auditor.
>
>If the KRAP agency is truly at arms length from the government*, then 
>a
>report of the keys released compared with records that the procedures 
>were
>followed, would allow anyone, the press included, to check that the
>government followed the procedures.
>
>Now, I frequently think that the press is in bed with the government, 
>so I
>am looking for a better auditor.  Some institution which values its
>reputation more than it values its relationship with the government 
>would
>do.  Anyone have any good candidates?
>
>* Assuring this arms length relationship is an exercise for the 
>student.
>(I give it a Knuth grade of 50.)
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bill Frantz       | I have taken a real job at | Periwinkle -- 
>Consulting
>(408)356-8506     | Electric Communities as a  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
>frantz@netcom.com | capability security guru.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, 
>USA
>
>
>

At 5:43 PM -0800 4/2/97, Timothy C. May wrote:
>However, key recovery need have no "hooks" by government into it. The
>attempt by the government to ensure secret access, without even so much as
>a search warrant, is revealing.

This issue is to me key.  If the government wants any creditability on the
GAK issue, it will include in any GAK system, a provision for independent
auditing, after the fact, of intercepts.  (BTW - I will still oppose GAK,
but some of my best arguments will be taken away.)

It seems to me that once you swollen the idea that government has, under
any circumstances, a right to read your mail, there are two issues.

(1) Is the proscribed procedure fair?
(2) Did the government follow the procedure?

(My opposition to GAK is based on my belief that there are no star chamber
proceedings which are fair.  The ability to confront the witnesses against
you and compel witnesses to testify for you are key here.)

However, auditing only addresses the second issue.  There are many problems
with auditing the government's use of its access.  One key one is, who is
the auditor?  At CFP97, I suggested that the press would make a good
auditor.

If the KRAP agency is truly at arms length from the government*, then a
report of the keys released compared with records that the procedures were
followed, would allow anyone, the press included, to check that the
government followed the procedures.

Now, I frequently think that the press is in bed with the government, so I
am looking for a better auditor.  Some institution which values its
reputation more than it values its relationship with the government would
do.  Anyone have any good candidates?

* Assuring this arms length relationship is an exercise for the student.
(I give it a Knuth grade of 50.)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | I have taken a real job at | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | Electric Communities as a  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | capability security guru.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

At 12:08 AM -0800 4/2/97, Kent Crispin wrote:

>I'm not working from a cheat sheet.  No one is telling me what to say.
>Just like you, I am too totally inconsequential to make it worth
>anyone's time to try to make me say anything.
>
>I am not in favor of GAK, either.  When I talk about companies wanting
>key escrow I am speaking from observation, not ideology.  It's sad
>that a mailing list that purports to be a bastion of free thought
>harbors so many closed minds -- people who don't have the faintest
>idea about my beliefs fall all over themselves jumping to conclusions,
>apparently because they have become so conditioned to certain
>buzzphrases that they no longer think.


I don't see a significant fraction of the commentors here making
allegations that you are some kind of government agent. While you may have
a "LLNL" address, and so may work for the Lab, I don't consider this
significant, per se.

However, many of us are more than just opposed to GAK: we are skeptical of
claims that business wants something closely resembling GAK.

Key recovery systems have many legitimate uses; this has been acknowledged
by the thoughtful commentors here for several years, for as long as the
debate has existed. (Before the Cypherpunks group was even formed, I did
some consulting for a businees interested in setting up a form of offshore
data storage--key recovery was an obvious part of the strategy.)

However, key recovery need have no "hooks" by government into it. The
attempt by the government to ensure secret access, without even so much as
a search warrant, is revealing.

This is what we oppose. Opposing a system which could easily turn into GAK
is hardly a matter of "closed minds."

Kent, you don't want folks labelling you. You should then avoid language
like "fall all over themselves," "conditioned," "purports to be," and
"jumping to conclusions." In fact, in that paragraph of yours above nearly
every phrase was this sort of slam.

--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."