🚀 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 
|> 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.

Worse. I agree with the wag that suggested that this would be better
called a "uranium" balloon. What do you do about direct two-way
conversations, such as those provided by direct telephone calls with
modems? Again, how would you enforce your requirement? Routinely
tap all calls looking for "suspicious" data streams?

Furthermore, I flatly refuse to "keep the thread focused on this
proposal" because to do so would be to concede that what it attempts
to accomplish is a worthwhile goal. Sorry, Dorothy, you don't get off
that easily.

Dorothy Denning does deserve some credit, however. Because they came
from a technically literate person who should have known better, her
misguided proposals have lit bonfires under the "cypherpunks" like
nothing else could have. Cryptography (especially PGP) was the topic
of *intense* interest at last weekend's Hackers Conference. The
enthusiasm for implementing and widely deploying highly secure
cryptography was the highest I've ever seen anywhere. Many of the
participants commented that they were particularly motivated by a
strong desire to head off any potential attempt by the government to
regulate private cryptography. Rumor has it that PKP is also greatly
concerned by these proposals and may loosen up on the private use of
RSA for the same reasons.

Perhaps this was your true intention all along, Dorothy, and we
haven't given you enough credit. If so, please accept my apologies for
all the nasty things we have said about you lately.

Phil