[14728] in Cypherpunks
NYT article
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Edward Hirsch)
Sat Jun 4 00:22:12 1994
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 23:51:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Edward Hirsch <diseased@panix.com>
To: Cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <m0q9NOu-000IB2C@crynwr.com>
This might seem like a naive question, but I'm having a little trouble
with the NSA'a logic... they are offering Clipper as an international
standard, because an international standard is necessary. However, other
forms of encryption will still be legally available.
Clipper includes the "wiretapping" feature because the government has the
right and the need to look into individual's private correspondence in
select circumstances. However, the NSA recognizes that anyone who wants
to encode information in ways that can't be wiretapped will be able to do
so cheaply and easily (according to their statement in the New York Times
piece).
Assuming we take the NSA at its word (i.e. that Clipper is only meant to
be a voluntary standard , and is not being introduced as an initial step
towards a mandatory standard with "wiretapping" capabilities), then why
does it make sense to introduce Clipper, rather than go with something
like PGP, which has become a defacto international standard already?
