home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4642 alt.privacy:2198 comp.org.eff.talk:6949
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk
- Path: sparky!uunet!looking!brad
- From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
- Subject: Re: A Silver Bullet to Limit Crypto?
- Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:25:49 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Nov12.042549.11780@clarinet.com>
- References: <1992Nov11.183644.14979@netcom.com>
- Lines: 24
-
- Sorry to join this too-voluminous-to-read thread at this point, but I
- don't understand why people are proposing registration of encryption keys.
-
- The implication seems to be that this is to placate law enforcement people
- who want to continue to be able to tap/intercept/read private communications,
- perhaps to stop them from trying to ban encryption altogether?
-
- Is this some sort of joke? Do people seriously suggest such sort of
- placation is necessary or a good idea? Or is it law enforcement that's
- pushing for this registration?
-
- There is no need to compromise. Law enforcement is just going to have to
- face a hard fact -- in a few years they won't be able to wiretap. It is
- a heavy price for them to pay, but the other options are simply too much of
- a burden on either our freedoms, or our industries. I think the chance of
- them winning a ban on encryption are small. There is no need for anybody
- to compromise with key registration schemes that will be meaningless in the
- long run.
-
- (Surely any criminal element would use a registered key for outside encryption
- and an unregistered method for inside encryption, facing only the charge of
- unregistered encryption if they are wiretapped.)
- --
- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
-