From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b6040b5c68d3a7479946ae2765768b949099fbd8f00c2886674126084ff6725e
Message ID: <199312021707.AA01049@access.digex.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-12-02 17:08:44 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 09:08:44 PST
From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 09:08:44 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Key Escrow a *GAD* thing
Message-ID: <199312021707.AA01049@access.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
From: an4914@anon.penet.fi (Nitch)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 12:48:19 UTC
Subject: The Key Escrow is a *GOOD* thing.
I see the introduction of common, publicly promoted cryptography as a
*GOOD* thing... even if it's insecure. Yes, even if the government can
read every toggled bit of it.
If the public uses cryptography of even the simplest sort as a matter
of routine then the *REAL* cryptography, the really *SECURE* stuff, will
pass through unnoticed. Why would *I* care if some super-secret agency
could read my clipper'd data? I'd be using PGP on top of it! only then
my messages wouldn't stand out like so many lights in a dark night...
...more like just a few more stars in the sky.
+++
No insult intended "Nitch," but it is obvious that you haven't been much
involved in politics.
What you want is security by obscurity. The problem is that such
security is illusory.
I don't care what the administration says about the program being
voluntary. The centralization of encryption, which is what this program
is, is a *BAD* thing. (to use your emphasis) It is NOT a
standardization in the strict sense and the only thing that makes me
think otherwise in the slightest degree is the fact that AT&T is doing
the manufacturing (read: there is nothing that makes me think the other
way).
The easiest way for a large organization to take away major rights, or to
curb the development of major rights is to attack them slowly. Right
after everyone "adopts" this "voluntary" standard, it will be that much
easier to require compliance. Where will private crypto development be?
You will indeed be using PGP2.x on top of Clipper, even 50 years from now
when it is entirely behind the times. Why? Because Clipper will close
the valve on private development. I hope I'm being overly paranoid. I
really do.
Consider the administrations real stated purpose. (This is my wording,
but _their_ goal.) To harmonize the needs of law enforcement with the
(cryptographic) privacy of citizens. (We want to read your mail) Not
mentioned the thefact that this is like trying to harmonize sodium and
water. If (when) they find they can't read your mail, they are going to
be as upset as a spoiled child on christmas morning in a recession.
You really think they are going to invest so much time and effort in a
program that is so easily and plainly circumvented.
[Begin political rant here]
I suppose now is the time to harp on the trend against individual rights.
Call me a formalist, I just think most people want to live, conduct
business, relax, recreate, procreate and exist in general while being
generally _left alone_. I expect government to provide infrastructure
and support private development of infrastructure where it is most
efficient (the so called data highway in particular). I do not expect,
or want government to legislate morality, unreasonably impose a majority
(which is almost always an oligarchy, and not a majority) on the
remainder, gege nerally intervene in my private and legimate a affairs.
Clipper is simply invasionary.
- -uni- (Dark)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3
iQCVAgUBLP4cdRibHbaiMfO5AQHHPQP+KrNPS+NIA51t60tmNwIXpD5ruN/fAzqf
eXXWL9359lqEoFaRY0k7nqfG9qmbVCliHS882r4g5mqlWrw8F1ivIRUDnQVpLFda
I3RLiYO+/Y79hiC9EyFG4C0t7bp6nCxTkC3aXFdg5Hqy67DvRihwWmegK5PEF++y
Cy04OkTkxFA=
=4G3W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Return to December 1993
Return to “jimn8@netcom.com (Jim Nitchals)”