1995-12-06 - Re: NIST GAK export meeting, short version

Header Data

From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Message Hash: de811a1dddeffcce11374008846ade4c2cb8ae3415d09cfe736ac6132577d3f8
Message ID: <199512060426.XAA20883@thor.cs.umass.edu>
Reply To: <64158.pfarrell@netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-12-06 04:26:05 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 20:26:05 PST

Raw message

From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 20:26:05 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: NIST GAK export meeting, short version
In-Reply-To: <64158.pfarrell@netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199512060426.XAA20883@thor.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Pat Farrell writes:
> I just got back from the NIST GAK export meeting. This is
> a short writeup of a summary. 

(I should probably wait for a longer version, but what the hey...)

> (2) since the 64-bit limit was severly criticized at
> the Sept meeting, why is it still needed if there is also escrow?
> and on the 64-bit issue, that the government is "not certain it will
> work." he says they "want to see it implemented and want to see
> how it works" because 64-bit encryption is very strong. If the escrow
> doesn't work, they don't want a lot of softare to be in widespread use.

This answer sounds rather silly to me. Do they seriously doubt that the
escrow mechanism works (modulo MAB's observations about the LEAF), or expect 
us to believe that they do ?  Clinton Brooks' comments cited later by Pat
suggest a certain acceptance that enforcement will have its problems
(e.g. strong crypto tunnelling), but perhaps Greiveldinger somehow doesn't
officially share that view. Is there another interpretation of "working"
I'm missing here ?

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
"I'm from the D.O.E. and I just need to leave this here temporarily"
	(from a political cartoon entitled "The 3 Biggest Whoppers")