[52144] in Cypherpunks
Re: Why escrow? (was Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jim bell)
Thu Mar 14 17:24:56 1996
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 12:00:23 -0800
To: "Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@UNiX.asb.com>
From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
At 07:57 AM 3/14/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote:
>On 13 Mar 96 at 15:27, jim bell wrote:
>[..]
>> If I were trying to detect government investigation in such a situation, I
>> would buy a crypto phone, open an "escrow account" on a totally voluntary
>> basis, give them a phony key, and then (as part of the
>(presumably?) [..]
>
>Would it be legal to deceive an escrow agent?
It _should_ be legal. At least, assuming the arrangement is truly voluntary
and the escrow agent gets his part of the bargain (his usual fee) he has no
interest in knowing whether or not the data he's holding for you is "real"
or "imaginary."
The problem is, the government could easily start trying to control and
limit the "voluntariness" of this arrangement, as I've now just been told
they intend to do: Yes, the bill specifically wants the key escrow agent to
NOT tell the key holder if his key has been compromised. In my opinion,
this totally destroys the illusion that this agreement is "voluntary," and
makes me question any other "feel-good" component of this bill.
It is sections of the bill like that which will guarantee that nobody
provides an unencrypted key for escrow: Nobody will want to risk having the
escrow agent "forced" to release the key, even (and especially!) under a
court order. Fortunately, modern technology will provide the solution to
government-simpleton thinking.
Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com
Klaatu Burada Nikto
