From: lwp@mail.msen.com (Lou Poppler)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 09:10:34 PDT
To: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Subject: Re: Brian Davis' cypherpunk GAK proposal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.D-G.3.91.950903212120.8430B-100000@dg.thepoint.net>
Message-ID: </2DVwMz2Bo9Q083yn@mail.msen.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 3 Sep 1995 21:25:26 -0400 (EDT),
Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net> wrote:
} 
} I, of course, know of the "dislike" of GAK here.  I am curious to know, 
} however, if the "dislike" is because government would have access under 
} any circumstances or if the primary worry is that government will cheat 
} and get access when most would agree that they shouldn't (either by the 
} judge "cheating" or a TLA stealing it).
 
You leave out something here when you say `the judge "cheating"'.
Most of the proposals and draft legislation include words like
"or by other lawful authority" along with the provisions empowering
judges to grant access to keys.  Some versions will list various 
combinations of the Attorney General, Director of {TLA}, etc, as
explicitly empowered.  Other versions don't explicate the phrase,
perhaps trusting that those with the need will already know where
their lawful authority lies -- maybe in an anti-terrorist Executive
Order; maybe in legislation authorizing military support in drug
interdiction; perhaps in their organization's charter to protect
"national security".

Part of the concern is that spooks will have routine access to keys
without any cheating -- no stealing or bent judges will be required.
The War on Drugs, the War on Firearms, the War on Terrorists
(on Money Lauderers, on Pedophiles, on Spies) are just too important.

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

This would not be acceptable to the government.  Very many sincere,
patriotic government agents believe they currently have the right 
and the responsibility to monitor the civilians' possibly-illegal 
activities.  Your hypothetical review board of cypherpunks would 
unacceptably limit their established right to gather evidence and
intelligence.  Investigations too sensitive to mention here, would
be crippled.  Unless of course, you intended that "or by other lawful
authority" would be included in your scheme?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Lou Poppler <lwp@mail.msen.com> | "Understanding is a three-edged      ::
::    http://www.msen.com/~lwp/    | sword..."-- Ambassador Kosh, Babylon5::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::