IP: food for thought.... [ I fully agree with this!! djf]

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

To: farber () cis upenn edu
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 18:56:53 -0400
From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo () UU NET>




Subject: "Key Compromise" encryption....


in discussions with legislative staffers, I have taken to calling
the proposal "mandatory key compromise" and "key-compromised 
encryption" versus "uncompromised encryption"


i point out that if, as the language of the amendment demands,
that cleartext be immediately available to a third party without
knowledge or participation of the originator, that is the very
definition of a compromised cryptosystem and therefore
any system with that capability is *not* encryption, or 
at least can only be said to be "key-compromised".


when you talk about corporate trade secrets being *mandatorily
compromised* you get people's attention.


i suggest we take a page from their patron saint, George Orwell,
and take command of the language of this discourse.


yours for newer thinking


        -mo








************************************************************************
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."       - Ben Franklin, ~1784
************************************************************************