From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 23:33:33 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: gack vs. key escrow vs. key recovery
In-Reply-To: <199610040033.RAA18660@netcom19.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9610031857.A20673-0100000@netcom14>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> what is the precise difference between gack, key escrow, and
> key recovery? TCM has argued that the administration is muddying
> the issue by manipulating the terminology.

I don't know if Tim said that as well, but I certainly did. The 
government's move is ingenious. By appropriating the term "key recovery" for GAK, the 
government made it almost impossible to discern between key recovery as 
required in many commercial environments and GAK as required by an 
Orvelian surveillance state.

> perhaps so, but I feel
> that cpunks are equally guilty, by branding anything that emanates
> out of the government as inherently orwellian. do you always have
> to have an enemy? is the government always going to be your 
> enemy, no matter what they do?

Yes. What is good for the government and what is 
good for the people will always be opposite.

 > I have posted here before that many companies find the concept
> of "key recovery" highly acceptable and even desirable. the 
> basic question is, what does this mean to wiretapping and 
> search warrants and subpoenas?

I agree that true key recovery for the corporate environment is often 
desirable. I do not believe that it will ever have to include an outside 
'escow" agent.

 > it is clear we are coming to a fork in the road at this 
moment.
> there are going to be two types of cpunk opinions based on recent
> developments.
> 
> 1. those who feel that wiretapping was illegitimate from the
> start and are working to make wiretapping impossible. confronted
> with a legal search warrant/subpoena etc. for personal data, 
> they would not hand over keys. they would "superencrypt" in
> systems that do etc.

That's me.

[opposing view elided for brevity only]
 
> those who continue to pursue (1) are going to be perceived as
> more and more radical and extremist, because arguably it is not
> even a system we have today or one that was ever devised.
> remember, the constution guarantees
> freedom from *unreasonable* search and seizure, but never
> prohibited search and seizure in the first place!! apparently
> at least our found fathers believed that "reasonable" search
> and seizure was a wholly legitimate function of government,
> based on this wording.

The problem is that what the Funding Fathers considered "reasonable" and 
what today's courts consider reasonable have *nothing* in common.

[...]
> I'll be watching the debate closely, as the true extremists
> incapable of compromise (and thereby living in a fantasy world)
> show their colors....

Those who believe that the infringements on our rights can continue for 
all times with impunity are living in a fantasy world. While I am a 
peaceful, non-violent person, an ever increasing number of others feel 
differently. If the government 
continues on the course they are on - and requiring (never mind the 
'voluntary') GAK is doing just that - there will be those who will feel that 
armed resistance is the only option left. I will try everything in my 
power to not let it come to that. Therefore I must oppose GAK.

--Lucky