From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 94 23:56:10 PDT
To: snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
Subject: Re: Having your own computer means never having....
Message-ID: <9406210653.AA24992@anchor.ho.att.com>
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
> 
> What to stop him/her from shredding everything in the office?  This is a
> personnel/legal problem; there's nothing special about the use of
> cryptography (except that it might be reversable).

Reversability is the main difference - the disgruntled fired ex-sysadmin
can encrypt everything and promise to restore it for big bucks plus amnesty.
On the other hand, hiding the backup tapes and shredding everything is
relatively reversable as well, and has the advantage that you can
threaten to sell it to the competitors, so it's not much different.

When I was an undergrad, an ex-sysadmin left the University,
and a week or so after he was gone, the database system announced
that it would self-destruct in a week.  They had to keep the system
shut down for a couple of weeks and change the system clock while
they hunted for the time-bomb, and the same sort of thing could be
done in many modern systems without crypto, though crypto makes it easier.