From: "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" <PADGETT@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 11:16:59 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Third Generation Problems
Message-ID: <960303193329.2020177f@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Bill rites:
>Duress codes need to be designed to minimized the chance of such responses
>when they are used.

Absolutely but is a third generation problem:

First generation:  being able to protect the information (encryption)
Second Generation: being able to respond to risks (duress) incurred by the
                   first generation solution (duress codes)
Third Generation:  being able to respond to risks incurred by using the second
                   generation response (using the duress codes).

Is nice to plan for each up front but often the succeding generation risks
only become apparent after living with the preceeding generation solution
for a while. This should not prevent anyone from implementing the first
because of what *might* happen in the second. "Doing nothing" is a sound
solution only for politicians. 

Besides the purpose of "duress codes" is not just to provide an avenue for
use in case of threat, it is also to deter the threat in the first place
by reducing the "win" probability for those who might issue the threat.

(previously mentioned a very real consideration for the fifth amendment. will
not repeat.)

					Warmly,
						Padgett