🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov7.142220.1683@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>I'd like to suggest another possibility, which for want of a
>better name I'll call the "copper balloon".  It's quite clear that key 
>registration goes over like a "lead balloon".  My question is: is this 

Understatement of the year ... :-)

>any better?  worse?  I would also like to suggest that we keep this
>thread focused on this proposal and not on the merits/demerits of
>wiretapping in general.
>
>The basic idea is very simple.  Use a 3-way Diffie-Hellman public-key
>exchange protocol to set up a session key for use with say DES 

A rose by any name is still a rose...

I got a better idea:  Let police gather their evidence via good police
work and proper court orders based on probable cause, and keep government agencies or government
funded agencies OUT of either supplying 'secure' communications, or
keeping third keys OR managing keys FOR us by ANY scheme.  I would rather
manage my OWN, thank you.

In short, I don't want government controlling any aspect of my personal
communications any more than they allready do (which is too much).
ANYTHING that depends on any sort of good will on the part of government
agencies is unacceptable, because if there is a way around it, they will
find it.  Would you be willing to bet your LIFE on otherwise, because
that is, in effect what you may be asking others to do.

PLEASE concentrate your energies on designing even MORE secure means of
communication for individuals, instead of helping what the past has
shown to be a malevolant entity gain a greater degree of control.  All
one has to do is be branded (rightly or wrongly) some sort of threat,
and you will find out how malevolant govt agencies can get.  The relative
immunity social status may have provided instantly evaporates.  Has the
days of McCarthyism allready been forgotton?  What a nightmare would
have ensued if the government had the tools that are being proposed
these days!  Everybody would be at even greater risk the minute some
person angry with them denounces them, because most of the activity
would be done under the veil of secrecy.  A 'wrong' word here, a phrase
there, put together, probably out of context, and one is left proving
their innocence (using civil laws provides an end-run around Constitutional
protections).  Those of means probably can accomplish the proof, those
without those means (or those whose means have been siezed) are just
plain screwed.  It is so easy to suggest what OTHER people should have
to permit, invariably those who do the suggesting envision themselves
exempted from the restrictions in one way or another, either by status,
employment, or knowlege the rest of us do not possess.

I have seen nothing in any proposals that offer something in exchange
for the sacrifice of having the gov't control private communications,
either directly or indirectly.  WHAT DOES THE AVERAGE PERSON GAIN BY
ENDORSING THESE GOVT CONTROL PROPOSALS?

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"