From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 01:27:06 +0800
To: "Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@UNiX.asb.com>
Subject: Re: Why escrow? (was Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto
Message-ID: <m0txJBF-00091sC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 07:57 AM 3/14/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote:
>On 13 Mar 96 at 15:27, jim bell wrote:


>[..]
>> If I were trying to detect government investigation in such a situation, I 
>> would buy a crypto phone, open an "escrow account" on a totally voluntary 
>> basis, give them a phony key, and then (as part of the 
>(presumably?)  [..]
>
>Would it be legal to deceive an escrow agent?

It _should_ be legal.  At least, assuming the arrangement is truly voluntary 
and the escrow agent gets his part of the bargain (his usual fee) he has no 
interest in knowing whether or not the data he's holding for you is "real" 
or "imaginary."  

The problem is, the government could easily start trying to control and 
limit the "voluntariness" of this arrangement, as I've now just been told 
they intend to do:  Yes, the bill specifically wants the key escrow agent to 
NOT tell the key holder if his key has been compromised.  In my opinion, 
this totally destroys the illusion that this agreement is "voluntary," and 
makes me question any other "feel-good" component of this bill.

It is sections of the bill like that which will guarantee that nobody 
provides an unencrypted key for escrow:  Nobody will want to risk having the 
escrow agent "forced" to release the key, even (and especially!) under a 
court order.  Fortunately, modern technology will provide the solution to 
government-simpleton thinking.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Klaatu Burada Nikto