From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 09:31:42 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <mab@research.att.com>
Subject: Re: "Key Escrow without Escrow Agents"
Message-ID: <199605262233.PAA16932@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 01:56 PM 5/25/96 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

>
>I can see that you might create a code of law that determines
>what procedures that these "distributed key juries"  are supposed
>to follow. but like our legal system, the interpretation and
>application is ultimately left up to them.
>
>an interesting system, that is commendable for trying to
>find a compromise between two seemingly irreconcilable polarities
>(privacy and surveillance) but I doubt anyone in law enforcement
>(with the mindset, "I can't be stopped from doing my job as I
>see fit or criminals will get away") would go for it in the current form.

But as long as key-escrow is claimed to be "voluntary," then the police 
should be happy if it is used at all.  If they object that it is possible 
somebody won't agree that the person involved shouldn't have his data 
revealed, we can remind them that the jury system prevents conviction if not 
all of the jury agrees as to guilt.  This is no worse than having, say, 12 
key-escrow organizations and allowing any one to not reveal the correct key. 
 Naturally, it will be necessary to ensure that they can refuse without 
anyone else knowing who opted out...

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com