From: Jonathan Rochkind <jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 94 00:09:13 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Having your own computer means never having....
Message-ID: <199406190709.DAA05044@cs.oberlin.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> Beyond that, unrestrained encryption is dangerous to corporations,
> because what's to stop a ticked off employee from encrypting
> everything in the office as revenge for some imagined slight?
 
If the bozo has write-priveledges to everything in the office, sounds
like a problem with or without encryption. Or were you just suggesting
that he was going to encrypt it all and mail it to a competitor?
This too seems to be a problem with or without encryption; he can just copy
to floppy and snailmail to a competitor. Same with industrial espionage of
just about any kind; sure it makes it _easier_ for the hypothetical
spy to do his dirty work, but it doesn't actually enable him to do anything
fundamentally different then he could before.
 
I can't think of any real security risks introduced by allowing employees
the use of encryption, that weren't present already. Certainly none
mentioned thus far fit the bill. 
 
Obviously properly used encryption can enable the corporation to keep
info in the "hands", of only those people who are supposed to have it, actually. 
Although of course I'm not accusing you of suggesting that corporations
shouldn't have access to good cryptology; you probably wouldn't be 
on the list if you thought that. I'm not completely sure how different it is
to say that individuals give up their right to good cryptology upon
being employed by a corporation, however.