From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 17:42:36 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Notes from SAFE meeting
In-Reply-To: <v02140b01adfe2083f1d8@[17.219.102.1]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.94.960701225624.15058C-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Martin Minow wrote:

> burns: fbi, cia, nsa presented to senate/congress: said nothing that wasn't
> already in public record (newspapers)

But he was entertaining.

> telia (Swedish Telecom) representative (Mattias Soederholm) -- can't import
> strong encryption as NSA claims it would harass company. doesn't like having
> to tell customers that USA will read their mail.

Specifically, he said "They said they had the power to harass us in ways
that could not be traced." Conspiracy hounds feel free to have a field day
with that one... 

> solve crimes, prevent crimes? would key escrow prevent oklahoma bombing?
> but without strong crypto, foreigner working outside usa can take plane down,
> grab medical records. etc., by hacking insecure networks.

This seems to be the best argument for the masses. Tod L... from Wired and
VTW felt the need to made some disparaging cracks about libertarian rants,
as he distinguished them from the rational commentary.

> second fundamental problem: operating key escrow center economically and
> technically difficult. 24/7/365, 2 hour response to law enforcement request.

Craig-somebody from Microsoft had earlier made an excellent point about the
insurability of zero-asset escrow agencies. Would you give your key to this
man?

(Yes, I did find that funny coming from a Microsoft employee.)

> the dumb criminal theory? blow up buildings with trucks they rent in
> their own names.

Of course, that kind of suicidally dumb criminal tends to do the most
damage. Key escrow wouldn't help because it's too slow.

-rich