From: duncan@hasp.com (Duncan J Watson)
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 10:29:21 PDT
To: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Subject: Re: GAK
In-Reply-To: <Pine.D-G.3.91.950903212120.8430B-100000@dg.thepoint.net>
Message-ID: <9509071332.ZM124@titan.hasp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Brian,

Your question is very hard to answer as poised.  How is access granted?  To 
whom?  In what period of time?, etc.

The details are very important here as this is a very detail-oriented list.  
Also the details of implementation are where you may find the objections.  
Many plans sound grand when loosely described but fail due to small details.

My personal belief is that any mandatory key escrow system will be open to 
abuse by authority figures.  A solidly implemented key escrow service operated 
by smart privacy oriented private firms would have benifit corperations and 
others engaged in cooperative development or other cooperative operations.  
Key escrow would keep the accountants and lawyers happy.  

Just my $0.02.
djw

On Sep 3,  9:25pm, Brian Davis wrote:
> Subject: Re: GAK
[stuff deleted]
> 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).
> 
> In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of 
> non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable??
> 
> EBD
> 
>-- End of excerpt from Brian Davis



-- 
Duncan J Watson                            Email:Duncan@hasp.com
Tech Support Manager/Sys Admin             Ph#:  +1 212 564 5678
Aladdin Software Security Inc              Fax#: +1 212 564 3377
:::finger Duncan@hasp.com for PGP key:::   http://www.aks.com/