1996-11-07 - Re: Euro Key Escrow

Header Data

From: um@c2.net (Ulf =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=F6ller?=)
To: ben@algroup.co.uk
Message Hash: d529325194c4f8bca8aa99f6a18cad8a88e67477fc28008cf014223d7d64a994
Message ID: <9611071242.AA09360@public.uni-hamburg.de>
Reply To: <9611070921.aa15606@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-07 13:24:54 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 05:24:54 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: um@c2.net (Ulf =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=F6ller?=)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 05:24:54 -0800 (PST)
To: ben@algroup.co.uk
Subject: Re: Euro Key Escrow
In-Reply-To: <9611070921.aa15606@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Message-ID: <9611071242.AA09360@public.uni-hamburg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> It is, apparently, true that the EC is considering schemes for key escrow, by
> "trusted third parties"

There is an extensive survey at the European Cryptography Resources page,

The EU commission's group DG XIII has been discussing key escrow for quite
some time, but they have not yet been able to agree on a position.
Jerome Thorel has posted some rather scaring interviews with EU official
David Herson who is in favor of a key esrow scheme. Victor Mayer-Schoenfelder
reports that crpyo regulation is likely to be delegated to the more liberal

A number of member states, such as Denmark, very unlikely to accept key

> ftp://ftp.dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk/pub/Chris.Mitchell/istr_a2.ps

Ross Anderson has analyzed Mitchell's scheme, drawing the conclusion that
"The GCHQ protocal is very poorly engineered." See

> I'm informed that this is likely to be introduced into EC legislation, though
> my understanding is that members are not required to actually incorporate the
> legislation. No doubt France will embrace it with happy shouts.

The final decision will almost certainly with the member states, because
cryptography is considered essential for national security.