From: “Alan (Miburi-san) Wexelblat” <wex@media.mit.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 5a08927894bd630c359d93e237df67f1a76df3237ac90a6fb1c4274d7a8cf004
Message ID: <9404151416.AA27651@media.mit.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-04-15 14:16:57 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 07:16:57 PDT
From: "Alan (Miburi-san) Wexelblat" <wex@media.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 07:16:57 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: 'Nother MIT talk on crypto...
Message-ID: <9404151416.AA27651@media.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> Thursday, April 21, 1994
> Refreshments at 4:00pm, Talk at 4:15pm in NE43-518
>
> ``WHICH KEY ESCROW, IF ANY?''
> or
> ``Fair Cryptosystems vs. The Clipper Chip''
> by
> Silvio Micali
> MIT
>
>Wide-spread use of cryptography will greatly enhance our privacy, but
>will also make court-authorized line-tapping impossible. In an effort
>to make cryptography ``compatible'' with law enforcement, the Clinton
>Administration has been advocating the use of a new encryption
>technology: the Clipper Chip.
>
>Whether cryptography should be regulated at all is an important
>question, one that should be debated at all possible levels of our
>society. This talk, however, focuses primarily on TECHNICAL points
>that are crucial to make an informed decision. In particular, we
>address the following questions:
>
>* Does Clipper Chip really make cryptography and law enforcement
> compatible?
>
>* Does Clipper Chip introduce unwanted and/or unforseen dangers?
>
>* Are there better alternatives to making encryption and law
> enforcement compatible, if this is what we want?
Return to April 1994
Return to “hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)”