🚀 go-pugleaf

 In <1992Nov12.042549.11780@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com
 (Brad Templeton) writes:


>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?

 I am reading this under sci.crypt where we have been discussing
 arguments against possible legislation.  There have been a few
 posted, but none come close to the impact of preventing child
 molesting, finding terrorist plots or thwarting assassinations, the
 sort of things which would be used to propose such legislation.

 Basically, I would like to hear a cogent argument which would
 influence legislation.  I doubt that calling it "a joke" would
 do that.


>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.

 The issue is not so much wiretapping, although we will need strong,
 cogent arguments against that as well.  The questionable area is
 the (preservation of?) the ability of society to penetrate
 individual secrecy *after* due process.  Two ways are suggested:

    1. By requiring key registration (presumably, the use of an
       unregistered key would itself be a crime);

    2. By requiring the user to provide access to enciphered
       messages (presumably by retaining ciphertext and keys), with
       the inability to provide such access itself being a crime.

 As to whether or not we "compromise," I can only assume that you
 expect the courts to come to our aid *after* legislation has been
 passed.  Maybe they will, but I think that attitude wastes any
 opportunity we may have to influence the legislation in the first
 place.

 Inevitably there must be limits to all rights.  What are the limits
 on the individual's right to secrecy?

 ---
 Terry Ritter   ritter@cactus.org