From: "Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@unix.asb.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 07:44:48 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Global Government Access to Keys (GGAK)
Message-ID: <199607161705.NAA19024@unix.asb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On 15 Jul 96 at 8:53, Timothy C. May wrote:
[..]
> There are some interesting "public relations" stunts we can use to
> undermine support for the concept of GAK:
> 
> * Announce in corporate press releases (for some Cypherpunkish company?)
> that "As per the laws of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, we have provided Col.
> Qaddaffi's Office of People's Security with our encryption keys for all
> communications passing into, out of, or over Libyan soil."

Just replace it with the French government.  They've already a 
reputation for abusing escrow.

[..]
> There are other aspects of GAK which also collide with basic values. For
> example, consider several classes of communications we consider
> "privileged":

Supposedly 'exceptions' would be made for situations such as medical 
records, etc.  What those exceptions are, and whether they are really 
more than superficial (ie, escrowed but larger keysize) exceptions is 
another question.

 > -- attorney-client discussions, in person or over phone lines.
> -- doctor-patient discussions
> -- psychiatrist--patient discussions
> -- priest--penitent confessions

What about 'journalist--informant'?

The Clinton admin will ask "Ah, but what if they forget their keys?"

This is nonsense.  It would require a standardized way to return 
record storage keys to someone, and a secure means of doing so... a 
whole other can of worms.

Many of these relationships have been compromised when the state sees 
fit anyway.

Rob
---
No-frills sig.
Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help"
Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl@unix.asb.com (root@magneto)
        AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.