[45413] in Cypherpunks
Re: NIST GAK meeting writeup, LONG part 3 of 3
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Futplex)
Thu Dec 14 21:08:47 1995
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:48:57 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
In-Reply-To: <m0tQMvq-00090LC@pacifier.com> from "jim bell" at Dec 14, 95 03:18:28 pm
From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
jim bell writes:
> It _is_ less voluntary, because it interferes with my right to escrow my key
> with an organization that is willing to take the dispute to arbitrary levels
> of uncooperativeness with the government. I might insist, for example, that
> the organization only store the key outside the country (beyond the reach of
> US Courts) and require MY PERMISSION for them to release it to the
> government. I might also insist that they further encode the key so that
> only an independent foreign organization (out of reach of US courts) could
> provide the key to decrypt it.
>
> If key escrow is REALLY REALLY REALLY "voluntary", then such arbitrary
> restrictions should be do-able.
Unless I've missed something large, you can have an _uncertified_ key escrow
agent store your keys in Fidel Castro's beard, and only release them with
written permission from your goldfish.
Whether or not you use a certified key escrow agency would remain your
choice, AFAIK.
I'm not expressing support for the certification standards that have been
presented. But I don't consider it cause for great alarm that the USG wants
to play in the escrow agent rating bureau business.
-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
