From: Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: d3a93b2a5d69e7807df8d4460ddb537b918e58cae9d9845a6ef9aba914b503ac
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951206143218.19801G-100000@viper.law.miami.edu>
Reply To: <199512052356.AAA09563@utopia.hacktic.nl>
UTC Datetime: 1995-12-06 19:38:05 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 11:38:05 PST
From: Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 11:38:05 PST
To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: re: NIST GAK export meeting, sv
In-Reply-To: <199512052356.AAA09563@utopia.hacktic.nl>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951206143218.19801G-100000@viper.law.miami.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Imagine you are in the Justice Dept. You have to work out a policy for
escrow agents because your boss says so. You begin to work out
scenarios, just like when you design software. One scenario is that the
FISA court issues a warrant for a wiretap/decrypt of a suspected foreign
agent. The fact of the order, and esp. the ID of the target, have a
SECRET classification. It is a crime to show a SECRET document to a
person without clearance. Yet, escrow agents can reasonably refuse to
disclose a key (indeed, SHOULD refuse to disclose a key) without seeing a
real warrant.
How do you solve the problem? (Hint: asking Congress to change either
the classification laws, the FISA court rules, or the GAK policy are not
options.)
I'm certain the above was a large part of their thinking in adding the
requirement of a SECRET cleared person. If you accept their premises --
note the "if" -- it makes a certain degree of sense. I offer the
following two bets for which I have no evidence:
1) This will be the PR that most damages the proposal
2) If they ever actually implement the policy, they will give the
clearances out as fast as they can, just to show good faith. Not that
SECRET is a very high clearance any more, anyway....It's main value is in
giving them another way to jail you if you leak the fact of the order and it
ruins the investigation. (Plus, I suppose, obstruction of justice...)
CRYPTO: Does anyone recall the cite for a paper a few years that set out a
way to have escrow agents who would be "oblivious" to the identity of the
subject of the warrant? And how would such an escrow agent be sure that
they were not being duped by the feds?
A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law |
U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.
Return to December 1995
Return to “nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)”