From: Jim Gillogly <jim@rand.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 12:52:00 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Focus on Clipper Details Plays into Their Hands
In-Reply-To: <199403301845.KAA14830@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9403302051.AA16429@mycroft.rand.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes:
> I believe the focus on Clipper/Skipjack details and technical issues
> plays into the hands of those who want to deploy these systems.
...
> But let's be sure it doesn't divert us away from a prinicple rejection
> of the whole concept of key escrow.

I agree that focussing on the technical side is a diversion, and I have
been a major offender here lately.  But I also think it's important that
we understand what it is we're opposed to.  When challenged by an
articulate LE spokesperson in front of people we want to influence, if we
blurt out things about 40 bits being half of 80, or about acknowledged
trapdoors in Skipjack, or hogwash about pre-or post-encrypting on one side
or the other of Clipper, we won't be taken seriously -- so I think it's
important to counter misinformation with hard information when possible.
[And yes, I did misstate myself a bit on the 80-bit halves stuff... sorry.]

I'm opposed to key escrow because it gives government too much control of
my privacy and because it gives potential enemies other than the
government (such as criminals who want to get into my finances) a cheaper
target than strong encryption.  Understanding precisely how the government
claims they're protecting my rights is important to me, so that I can tell
them and anybody else willing to listen how they're not.

	Jim Gillogly
	Sterday, 8 Astron S.R. 1994, 20:46