Re: Clinton nixes domestic encryption right

--- begin forwarded text


X-Sender: tbell@cato.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date:         Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:10:46 -0400
Reply-To:     Law & Policy of Computer Communications
              <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender:       Law & Policy of Computer Communications
              <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From:         "Tom W. Bell" <tbell@CATO.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Clinton nixes domestic encryption right
To:           CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

Phill writes:

>Stuart Baker claims that Gore is the main administration supporter of GAK.
>But others have claimed the exact opposite. I suspect that if Gore really
>supported the GAK idea he would do so publically and explicitly, its a vote
>winner.

For what it's worth, I had dinner Monday with two people from Gore's office
and one of Microsoft's officers.  The Gore people consistently demanded
mandatory key escrow, though they seemed willing to allow private parties to
do the job so long as GAK remained an option.  The Microsoft person only
went so far as to offer to always make key escrow a *feature*, arguing that
this would in practice get the administration all the GAK it wants because
almost everyone would want to escrow their private keys.

The debate unfolded something like this:

Gore people:  "People using really strong encryption will *want* to escrow
their keys.  Otherwise, lost keys will result in irretrievably lost data."

MS person:  "Oh, sure--especially commerical players.  But you underestimate
the amount of resistance *mandated* escrowing will create.  People want to
*choose* to escrow.  If you let them, they will."

Gore people:  "Well, if they're going to escrow anyhow, what's the problem
with mandating it?"

MS person:  "You don't get it.  Our customers care deeply about their
encryption rights, and we want happy customers.  If the administration will
just back off, it will get what it wants--or, at least, as much as it can at
any rate expect."

It presented a classic case of cultural conflict--in this case, political
cultural confronting commercial culture.

Tom W. Bell
-----------
tbell@cato.org
Director, Telecommunications and Technology Studies
The Cato Institute

--- end forwarded text



-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

Robert Hettinga wrote:

> --- begin forwarded text
>
> X-Sender: tbell@cato.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Date:         Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:10:46 -0400
> Reply-To:     Law & Policy of Computer Communications
>               <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
> Sender:       Law & Policy of Computer Communications
>               <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
> From:         "Tom W. Bell" <tbell@CATO.ORG>
> Subject:      Re: Clinton nixes domestic encryption right
> To:           CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
>
> Phill writes:
>
> >Stuart Baker claims that Gore is the main administration supporter of
> GAK.
> >But others have claimed the exact opposite. I suspect that if Gore
> really
> >supported the GAK idea he would do so publically and explicitly, its
> a vote
> >winner.
>
> For what it's worth, I had dinner Monday with two people from Gore's
> office
> and one of Microsoft's officers.  The Gore people consistently
> demanded
> mandatory key escrow, though they seemed willing to allow private
> parties to
> do the job so long as GAK remained an option.  The Microsoft person
> only
> went so far as to offer to always make key escrow a *feature*

"Sir, the government getting your keys *isn't* a bug, it's a feature in
case you have to recover them.  Will the government use them illegally?
No, sir, why would they want to do that?"

> , arguing that
> this would in practice get the administration all the GAK it wants
> because
> almost everyone would want to escrow their private keys.

ROFLMAO.

> The debate unfolded something like this:
>
> Gore people:  "People using really strong encryption will *want* to
> escrow
> their keys.  Otherwise, lost keys will result in irretrievably lost
> data."

And so that gorny geeks at the NSA can read mails relating to a grope in
the store room.

> MS person:  "Oh, sure--especially commerical players.  But you
> underestimate
> the amount of resistance *mandated* escrowing will create.  People
> want to
> *choose* to escrow.  If you let them, they will."

I choose to never escrow my keys.  It's my business, no one elses to
read my mail.

> Gore people:  "Well, if they're going to escrow anyhow, what's the
> problem
> with mandating it?"

> MS person:  "You don't get it.  Our customers care deeply about their
> encryption rights, and we want happy customers.  If the administration
> will
> just back off, it will get what it wants--or, at least, as much as it
> can at
> any rate expect."
>
> It presented a classic case of cultural conflict--in this case,
> political
> cultural confronting commercial culture.

To quote TV's Butt-Head, from Beavis & Butt-head: "Some people are
dumb."

> Tom W. Bell
> -----------
> tbell@cato.org
> Director, Telecommunications and Technology Studies
> The Cato Institute
>
> --- end forwarded text
>
> -----------------
> Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
> e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
> "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
> [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
> experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
> The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/