From: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 95 15:43:53 PDT
To: aba@atlas.ex.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Banque des Cypherpunks
In-Reply-To: <28715.9510111748@exe.dcs.exeter.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <199510112243.SAA21752@universe.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


aba@atlas.ex.ac.uk writes:
>Technologically it would be possible to have multiple ombudsmen, or
>even have the recovery key be secret share split amongst ecash users
>in such a way that some chosen percentage of agreement would be
>required before cash could be traced, or revoked (made worthless).

I don't rember if any key-splitting schemes currently allow it, but how
about this:  the escrow agencies would be the courts, requiring one
assent from each judge on the appeals chain.  As each judge rules
against the defendant or denies the appeal, he adds his piece of the
key to the ruling.  When you reach the top of the chain, then *and only
then* can you be traced.

I'm not really sure if this would apply in the ecash situation, since
you don't have a defendant until you've done the trace, but it sounds
like a legitimate safest solution in the case of GAK.  One can hardly
argue that the government has illegally revealed the keys when the
whole legal system has approved it.

NB:  I'm *strongly* opposed to GAK in principle.  I don't personally
think there's any such thing as a "legitimate need for law enforcment"
to listen in on private individuals.  A free man shouldn't have to
arrange for his life to be convenient for his servants --- private or
civil, it should be the other way around.  I'm just nothing that,
working from the common notion of "legal", this system would make
illegal key seizure unlikely.