From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 20:01:46 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
Message-ID: <m0u3BoI-0008ypC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 07:12 PM 3/30/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
>> At 02:19 PM 3/30/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
>> >On Sat, 30 Mar 1996 JonWienke@aol.com wrote:
>
>> >> principals are still safe.  The escrow agent doesn't have to send any
>> >> encrypted "rosebud" message to anyone, and he can bend over backwards 
to make
>> >> the LEO's happy, so his butt is covered, too.  At this point, the 
LEO's can
>> >> either (a) send the keys to the NSA for decryption, and thereby admit 
that
>> >> the gov't can break IDEA (or whatever cryptosystem was used to encrypt 
the
>> >> keys before the escrow agent got them), (b) rubber hose the unencrypted
>> >> key(s) from the principal, or (c) go home and pout.
>> >
>> >(d) [which may be a subset of (b)] impose contempt sanctions on the 
>> >principal until he releases the key to the key.
>> 
>> ...which would be a clear violation of the 5th amendment,
>
>This is not at all clear. 

The ONLY reason this is "not at all clear" is because of those 9 
morons-for-life they have currently sitting in that wasted building near the 
Congress building have never been particularly careful to follow the rules.  

I believe that this would be a "clear violation of the 5th amendment."   
Whether those 9 nincompoops agree is still up in the air.  Given the fact 
that they were chosen for their current jobs after a long history of 
"getting along" with system, their "reliability" to hold the government's 
line is quite understandable.

>> Of course, you've also assumed that the escrowed data 
>> actually represents some sort of key, which it may not. (The data-holder is 
>> never told that the data he's asked to hold is REALLY a key!)  
>
>The data holder is ordered to turn over the data.  He does in this 
>scenerio, the data is encrypted,

Actually, he doesn't know this.  As long as the data being held "looks like" 
random data, and contains no headers, as far as anybody knows it IS random 
data.  The data holder cannot know.

 >LEO goes to the principal, principal 
>refuses to provide key for the encrypted key that the escrow agent was 
>holding, compelled discovery is ordered,

5th amendment is invoked.

> now your right back into the 
>case where the principal never gave the data to the escrow agent in the 
>first place.

What you seem to have forgotten is that if the scenario you describe could 
really occur "in real life," this is all the more reason for ordinary 
citizens to REFUSE to use any kind of key-escrow system, or to do so in a 
way which is completely undetectable.  Naturally, you won't address this 
problem, but the man-on-the-street is more realistic about his own privacy.  
How many times must I raise this issue?  How many times do you ignore it?  
Face it, people are smarter than you give them credit for.  They will simply 
not tolerate any more shit from the government.

Was the government lying to us when they claimed that "key escrow will be 
voluntary"?  Or was this some odd new usage of the word "voluntary" that 
only appears in the "Newspeak Dictionary"?

With every new post you send, you simply go to prove that every concern that 
anybody ever had about the government's behavior is potentially reasonable.  
You really ought to quit while you're behind.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com