1995-09-07 - Re: GAK

Header Data

From: Mark Contois <mark@lenox.com>
To: bdavis@thepoint.net (Brian Davis)
Message Hash: 90e7ab9e15de42313af28715e48b6e7cdd4391dde1fbacbcc320908df33d7519
Message ID: <199509071628.MAA07681@tempest.lenox.com>
Reply To: <Pine.D-G.3.91.950903212120.8430B-100000@dg.thepoint.net>
UTC Datetime: 1995-09-07 16:31:21 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 09:31:21 PDT

Raw message

From: Mark Contois <mark@lenox.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 09:31:21 PDT
To: bdavis@thepoint.net (Brian Davis)
Subject: Re: GAK
In-Reply-To: <Pine.D-G.3.91.950903212120.8430B-100000@dg.thepoint.net>
Message-ID: <199509071628.MAA07681@tempest.lenox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

> In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of 
> non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable??

Speaking for myself only, of course, mandatory key escrow under *any*
circumstances is a Bad Thing.  I don't want anyone to have my secret
key/passphrase, even if 'anyone' consists of n respected cypherpunks.
(How are we supposed to tell whether they're LE, anyway?  I possess
a high degree of confidence, for example, that Tim May is not an
undercover spook.  But that doesn't stop various tentacles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
anonymous posters from expressing assertions to the contrary.)

If I *give* my key to an escrow agent, of course, that's a different
story.  ("Mr. Cheatem, in the event of my death or disappearance, please
decrypt this file with the enclosed key and fax it to the Washington
Post.")  But I certainly don't want to allow my key to reside with an
agent who could be forced to turn it over on the basis of a court order.

Sorry if I'm repeating an earlier discussion.


Mark Contois * The Lenox Group * Boston, MA * http://www.lenox.com/~mark/
Finger for PGP public key * Stellar Crisis: http://www.lenox.com/games/sc
Cypherpunks: Share and deploy ********* NSA: Go stick your head in a pig.