From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 04:28:37 +0800
To: Jim Ray <liberty@gate.net>
Subject: Re: The GAK Momentum is Building...
In-Reply-To: <199609181251.IAA118254@osceola.gate.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9609180737.A876-0100000@netcom22>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Jim Ray wrote:
> I agree, and hope so. "Key Recovery," while not as Orwellian-sounding as 
> "GAK," is a step on the path to honesty WRT the English language, though 
> it's important to continually point out, as Tim did in his post, that 
> *access* -- rather than just recovery -- is obviously what Mr. Freeh wants.
> 
> I'd count this likely change in terminology as a "cypherpunk victory," 
> albeit a very small and certainly a very hard-fought one.

Nope. It is a Cypherpunk loss. The use of the term "key recovery" for GAK 
now fully obfuscates the distinction between accessing a 
backup copy by the legitimate owner (or his estate, employer, etc.) and 
GAK. Many PKIs will support the former type of key recovery. And for good 
reasons. Thanks to the brainwashers using the same term for GAK, it will 
now become impossible to tell from a basic description of a PKI if it 
supports GAK or not. Furthermore, those who oppose the latter type of key 
recovery (us!), will be pushed further into the fringe by the media 
now being able to mix up our arguments against GAK with arguing against 
true key recovery. [Do you notice the weird constructs I have to use to 
distinguish the two meanings? One of them being new...]

--Lucky