From: Jeremy Cooper <jeremy@crl.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 94 15:59:22 PST
Subject: Re: clipper + enaction = illegal alternate encryption
In-Reply-To: <01H9GN16SBXU000676@UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9403031620.A20448-0100000@crl2.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 1 Mar 1994 VACCINIA@UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU wrote:

> Jeremy@crl.com writes:
> 
> >Now why bother going through all the trouble to take out the chip? Why 
> >not just leave it in there and send RSA encrypted over your phone line?
> >Once they _DO_ decrypt your clipper, they will still have another barrier. 
> >Leaving the chip in there does make it a little harder even for law 
> >enforcement doesn't it?
> 
> This is the reason all other forms of encryption will be outlawed if the
> clipper proposal goes through. I foresee at least two lines of enforcement.
> The first is that one is held in contempt of court (assuming they can find 
> some charges to press) until you give them your key. How long can they keep 
> you in the slammer on a contempt charge? This option is already available 
> and seems to work, at least so far. 

I am talking about the clipper of today, not tommorow.  When the
government decides to outlaw all other schemes of encryption then we have
a different story.  I was responding to someone who was going out of their
way (or said they would) to remove the chips from his/her equipment. 

                   _  .  _ ___ _  .  _
===-|)/\\/|V|/\/\ (_)/_\|_|\_/(_)/_\|_| Stop by for an excursion into the-===
===-|)||| | |\/\/  mud.crl.com 8888 (_) Virtual Bay Area!                -===