From: Edward Hirsch <diseased@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 94 21:00:54 PDT
To: Cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: NYT article
In-Reply-To: <m0q9NOu-000IB2C@crynwr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9406032350.A23402-0100000@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


This might seem like a naive question, but I'm having a little trouble 
with the NSA'a logic... they are offering Clipper as an international 
standard, because an international standard is necessary.  However, other 
forms of encryption will still be legally available.  

Clipper includes the "wiretapping" feature because the government has the 
right and the need to look into individual's private correspondence in 
select circumstances.  However, the NSA recognizes that anyone who wants 
to encode information in ways that can't be wiretapped will be able to do 
so cheaply and easily (according to their statement in the New York Times 
piece).

Assuming we take the NSA at its word (i.e. that Clipper is only meant to 
be a voluntary standard , and is not being introduced as an initial step 
towards a mandatory standard with "wiretapping" capabilities), then why 
does it make sense to introduce Clipper, rather than go with something 
like PGP, which has become a defacto international standard already?