From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 12:36:58 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Layman's explanation for limits on escrowed encryption ...
In-Reply-To: <199605241914.MAA10326@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960524153121.7840E-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 24 May 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 11:47 AM 5/24/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 May 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:
> >
> >> Could someone with some knowledge of NSA/DoS/FBI intentions please
> >> explain why key length limitations are necessary for escrowed
> >> encryption?
> >
> >To deal with the possibility that someone might slip through the cracks of
> >the escrow process.
> 
> However, this escrow process is claimed to be _voluntary._  And good, 
> non-escrowed encryption already exists today, outside the US.  It won't be 
> "slipping through the cracks," it'll be like opening the floodgates.  So the 
> question is still open:  Why key-length limitations on export?

I never said it was a reasonable explanation, I said it was an
explanation.  He asked about TLA intentions, not my views.

Really, and when you look at these things in the context of the Clipper
like plans, i.e. setting the defacto standard and chilling the development
of unescrowed strong crypto, it covers the bases nicely.

The assumption that needs to be looked at is that a standard setting plan
will actually shape the market.

> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
> 

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com