From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 08:10:42 +0800
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Another Analysis -- Re: NIST Draft Key Escrow Paper
Message-ID: <199605221827.LAA23713@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:35 AM 5/22/96 -0400, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote:
>Declan McCullagh and Gilmore have already provided a brief summary of the
>doc, here are a few thoughts I sent to some others last night:

[schtuff deleted]

>So Clipper III is a bit meaner and leaner. If Clipper I would have sunk
>because of sheer clumsiness, a sleeker ship carrying the same load will now
>be developed by the free market. The load is the assumption that citizens
>can be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

I didn't notice any specific reference to the difference between materials 
encrypted for long-term storage or transmission (data, email) and on the 
other hand audio telephone communications, the original stated application for the 
Clipper chip.  I can't see any reason that an individual would want the key 
to his own crypto telephone keys escrowed; unlike the key for data on a computer, 
which at least theoretically might be lost, the cryptophone data is by 
definition lost as soon as it is used.  Therefore, I can see no argument 
which would make a person support this key escrow for that purpose.  Since 
the whole system is supposed to be "voluntary", who is going to accept this?

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com