From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 94 20:49:36 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:  'Nother MIT talk on crypto...
Message-ID: <9404180348.AA14728@anchor.ho.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Hal writes:
> From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
> > Micali's "fair" cryptosystem is a much better key surrender system
> > than Clipper, but it still allows non-intended recipients for a
> > message.
> > For this reason, I don't like it either.


> "Abstract.  We show how to construct public-key cryptosystems that are 
> _fair_, that is, strike a good balance, in a democratic country, 
> between the needs of the Government and those of the Citizens."

> When I first heard of this so-called "Fair" (one of the most misused 
> words in political debate) system, my reaction was to snort in derision.

But it's just putting us and the government on a _level playing field_,
isn't it?  That's all we're asking for!
...
...
...  Yeah, right.  Like tariffs backed by armed thugs.

Don't know about democracies, but in a free country what the government 
needs is a good reminder of who's in charge of whom, since the citizens
would be expected to know that already.  And even in a democracy,
if N-1 of the citizens decide that they want to know your key,
they can decide to hire the rubber-hose guys after the fact
if you don't cooperate.

		Bill Stewart, who just had to sign a purely voluntary
		form telling the government how much money they can
		have in the purely voluntary income tax system
		which gives the Democractically elected government
		the money they Democratically decide to spend.
		Or something like that.