From: “snow” <snow@smoke.suba.com>
To: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Message Hash: a3f8ad0fed367bd31cbcbec7b61f7d484e943efc06471314f381ce0c86d3efa1
Message ID: <199709150213.VAA00520@smoke.suba.com>
Reply To: <199709121430.QAA16638@basement.replay.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-09-15 02:32:05 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:32:05 +0800
From: "snow" <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:32:05 +0800
To: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Subject: Re: Not key escrow, key recovery
In-Reply-To: <199709121430.QAA16638@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <199709150213.VAA00520@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
>>It is quite probable that this has been said before. In case it hasn't,
>>however, I feel compelled to point out that mandatory key escrow/recovery
>>could likely mean an economic disaster of unimaginable proportions.
> (Underpaid clerk steals secret keys, etc.)
> Wake up. It's not key escrow, it's key recovery. Every message will be
> encrypted with a LEAF (law enforcement access field). This is an additional
> recipient who can decrypt the message. No user or corporate secret
> keys are escrowed. You're working with yesterday's scenario.
Oh, great. So there will be a few hundred LEAKs (Law Enforcement
Agency Keys) laying around on hard drives all over the country so these
LEA's can decrypt the messages. Great.
Return to September 1997
Return to ““snow” <snow@smoke.suba.com>”