From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:44:04 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?
In-Reply-To: <v02140b00aea82fb2502a@[192.0.2.1]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961107232620.1475A-100000@gak.voicenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Peter Hendrickson wrote:

> If mandatory GAK were imposed, reviewing messages is easy, even with
> inter-agency fighting.  Or, encryption in general could just be
> forbidden if GAK created too much hassle.

How would this be possible?  The latest GAK proposal is for companies to store
keys instead of the government.  There is the potential for colaboration
between a TLA and an "escrow" company.  It is also possible for a TLA to
illegally obtain the keys from the company's database.  However, it would
still be impossible to review every message.  Even if the government had full
access to all encryption keys, it would still be technically infeasible to
review every message.

> In practice I suspect that good stego is hard.  You don't have to be
> right every time when you look for it, just some of the time.  When
> you see packets that seem kind of funny to you, the judge issues you
> a warrant and you search the suspect's house and computer very carefully.
> If stego is in use, the software that generated it can be found.  Then
> you hand out a life sentence.

Good stego is possible.  Stegoing data in jpegs is very secure and probably
infeasible to detect.  This scenario is not entirely unrealistic -- in some
states a rise in electrical bills is enough to get a judge to issue a search
warrant to search the suspect's home for evidence of marijuana cultivation.
However, I find the life sentence idea pretty unrealistic.  You are assuming
that there will be wide support for tough restrictions on crypto.  This is
not currently the case and I doubt it would ever get to this point.

Not very many people are currently supporting any life sentence for anyone
who is in possession of explosives, despite the increase in terrorist
activity.  Gun-control advocates aren't supporting laws that will give a life
sentence to anyone who owns a gun.  Given that many people who believe in
gun-control and tagants in explosives are against GAK, why do you think there
will be such a revolt against strong crypto?  

Mark
- -- 
finger -l for PGP key
PGP encrypted mail prefered.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMoK68yzIPc7jvyFpAQHN5QgAhsvpuZPwvGV32VTlzS+fRuLXXwWDqmQL
0/etFQkdo0aOwOm8qnGHQzq796tOQVDBFVE8QJSiQqCqukETc1G+E2IDqA53Yl5f
xhCfKjBOcp2ZA63ZjKZYd6nVKnoxlgnz5BfVlShMVdxFDszo2SC4HqSvBhRDOjZr
npGhDPRiabTWEs4tAXUvh5ymelCBtgdLmDAjPKPgTYnloWUIUNBkGQ1pvRYD/lAs
OeL/OPJNNicmKFx1kN9Xx6NP/IYhmS9qUE0qQ0iPUWo8hILqA4ZgIaxY826M6ikQ
6/RMsBzIg03xzrWw4gOYB2HyC0Hk/sDTgMNiHxYvy6ugfzdweO/yCg==
=mlYb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----