Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: WIDE-EYED OECD DELEGATES POLITELY ACCOSTED BY JOURNALIST
From: Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 11:13:17 -0400
http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Key_escrow/OECD/oecd_paris_cukier_092696.arti cle http://www.eff.org/~declan/global/g7-oecd/oecd_paris_cukier_092696.article Originally posted to fight-censorship () vorlon mit edu. WIDE-EYED OECD DELEGATES POLITELY ACCOSTED BY JOURNALIST By Kenneth Neil Cukier (100736.3602 () compuserve com) PARIS, Sept. 26 -- The people involved in the crypto debate are all intelligent, honorable and pro-escrow, but they never possess more than two of these qualities at once. Or so it seems to me after a conversation tonight with eight North American delegates to the OECD crypto meeting currently taking place in Paris. While they were finishing up dinner in a small restaurant, I introduced myself to them, although a few knew me already. "Watch out -- the press," said one. "How in the world did you find us?!" (Here I'll jump into that oxymoron "journalistic ethics." A two-bit reporter in a cheap suit has only his wits and reputation to get by on, so I didn't reveal my source to them, as I can't reveal any names of those at the table to you... I told them if they let me join them, I would listen and "not know who they were.") No great secrets were shared, but it made for a terrific chance to get an earful on what delegates are thinking after the first day of the closed-door meeting. In considering their remarks, it appears that: * Nothing is firmly decided at the moment. * The OECD will eventually come up with non-binding principles on crypto policy for their member-states. * The aggressively pro-escrow position of the U.S. is meeting resistance during the meetings. * Key, limelight delegates are concerned about the shroud of secrecy surrounding the talks, and the effect it has on furthering crypto-conspiracy fears. * The commercial and law enforcement perspective is more represented than privacy concerns. One delegate said that a North American country "made others unhappy" by their stance. (Without saying who was unhappy or why.) But the person also said that the most important parts of the meeting took place during the coffee breaks -- which offer chances not just for different countries to discuss issues, but for national delegations to negotiate their stances among themselves Another delegate vilified the position of the crypto experts who spoke against "key escrow" at a conference here Wednesday -- especially Whitfield Diffie -- alleging that cryptographers have commercial motives for the positions they advocate. The delegate said that the business community was in favor of key escrow, and that technical people approach key escrow as a technical problem, although the system can be easily put into place and iron out their worries. That remark may have been aimed at Matt Blaze, the AT&T Bell Laboratories scientist, who at yesterday's conference explained that key escrow would entail a high cost and a major risk. The person -- the only one who didn't have the top button of his shirt unbuttoned and wear his tie loosely -- defended key escrow by saying that car dealers can make keys based on the registration number on the windshields, but that people aren't in an uproar. I responded by pointing out that "If you look at U.S. politics over the past 20 years, you'd probably feel more comfortable giving your crypto keys to your car dealer than your government." Others at the table said that it would be good to issue a press release after the meeting finishes Friday, and a more substantial one than was issued when the group met last December. The person said that such a public communique should be specific and mention all the issues involved. They also noted that the OECD's secrecy led to wrong assumptions on the nature of the talks in the crypto community. Another person explained that OECD's "recommendations" would be non-binding guidelines for the member countries. As for the process itself, some at the table said that the OECD had a deadline, which the organization is not used to operating under, but that it was such an urgent issue that there was no other way. Separately, one of the delegates at the dinner said that the OECD would likely meet its deadline of February to issue the report. The deadline was announced in July by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno at the G-7 conference on terrorism in Paris. After about 20 minutes, the delegates paid the bill and returned to their hotels. But we in the Net community are left with picking up the tab. ### http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Key_escrow/OECD/oecd_paris_cukier_092696.arti cle http://www.eff.org/~declan/global/g7-oecd/oecd_paris_cukier_092696.article Originally posted to fight-censorship () vorlon mit edu. WIDE-EYED OECD DELEGATES POLITELY ACCOSTED BY JOURNALIST By Kenneth Neil Cukier (100736.3602 () compuserve com) PARIS, Sept. 26 -- The people involved in the crypto debate are all intelligent, honorable and pro-escrow, but they never possess more than two of these qualities at once. Or so it seems to me after a conversation tonight with eight North American delegates to the OECD crypto meeting currently taking place in Paris. While they were finishing up dinner in a small restaurant, I introduced myself to them, although a few knew me already. "Watch out -- the press," said one. "How in the world did you find us?!" (Here I'll jump into that oxymoron "journalistic ethics." A two-bit reporter in a cheap suit has only his wits and reputation to get by on, so I didn't reveal my source to them, as I can't reveal any names of those at the table to you... I told them if they let me join them, I would listen and "not know who they were.") No great secrets were shared, but it made for a terrific chance to get an earful on what delegates are thinking after the first day of the closed-door meeting. In considering their remarks, it appears that: * Nothing is firmly decided at the moment. * The OECD will eventually come up with non-binding principles on crypto policy for their member-states. * The aggressively pro-escrow position of the U.S. is meeting resistance during the meetings. * Key, limelight delegates are concerned about the shroud of secrecy surrounding the talks, and the effect it has on furthering crypto-conspiracy fears. * The commercial and law enforcement perspective is more represented than privacy concerns. One delegate said that a North American country "made others unhappy" by their stance. (Without saying who was unhappy or why.) But the person also said that the most important parts of the meeting took place during the coffee breaks -- which offer chances not just for different countries to discuss issues, but for national delegations to negotiate their stances among themselves Another delegate vilified the position of the crypto experts who spoke against "key escrow" at a conference here Wednesday -- especially Whitfield Diffie -- alleging that cryptographers have commercial motives for the positions they advocate. The delegate said that the business community was in favor of key escrow, and that technical people approach key escrow as a technical problem, although the system can be easily put into place and iron out their worries. That remark may have been aimed at Matt Blaze, the AT&T Bell Laboratories scientist, who at yesterday's conference explained that key escrow would entail a high cost and a major risk. The person -- the only one who didn't have the top button of his shirt unbuttoned and wear his tie loosely -- defended key escrow by saying that car dealers can make keys based on the registration number on the windshields, but that people aren't in an uproar. I responded by pointing out that "If you look at U.S. politics over the past 20 years, you'd probably feel more comfortable giving your crypto keys to your car dealer than your government." Others at the table said that it would be good to issue a press release after the meeting finishes Friday, and a more substantial one than was issued when the group met last December. The person said that such a public communique should be specific and mention all the issues involved. They also noted that the OECD's secrecy led to wrong assumptions on the nature of the talks in the crypto community. Another person explained that OECD's "recommendations" would be non-binding guidelines for the member countries. As for the process itself, some at the table said that the OECD had a deadline, which the organization is not used to operating under, but that it was such an urgent issue that there was no other way. Separately, one of the delegates at the dinner said that the OECD would likely meet its deadline of February to issue the report. The deadline was announced in July by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno at the G-7 conference on terrorism in Paris. After about 20 minutes, the delegates paid the bill and returned to their hotels. But we in the Net community are left with picking up the tab. ### http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Key_escrow/OECD/oecd_paris_cukier_092696.arti cle http://www.eff.org/~declan/global/g7-oecd/oecd_paris_cukier_092696.article Originally posted to fight-censorship () vorlon mit edu. WIDE-EYED OECD DELEGATES POLITELY ACCOSTED BY JOURNALIST By Kenneth Neil Cukier (100736.3602 () compuserve com) PARIS, Sept. 26 -- The people involved in the crypto debate are all intelligent, honorable and pro-escrow, but they never possess more than two of these qualities at once. Or so it seems to me after a conversation tonight with eight North American delegates to the OECD crypto meeting currently taking place in Paris. While they were finishing up dinner in a small restaurant, I introduced myself to them, although a few knew me already. "Watch out -- the press," said one. "How in the world did you find us?!" (Here I'll jump into that oxymoron "journalistic ethics." A two-bit reporter in a cheap suit has only his wits and reputation to get by on, so I didn't reveal my source to them, as I can't reveal any names of those at the table to you... I told them if they let me join them, I would listen and "not know who they were.") No great secrets were shared, but it made for a terrific chance to get an earful on what delegates are thinking after the first day of the closed-door meeting. In considering their remarks, it appears that: * Nothing is firmly decided at the moment. * The OECD will eventually come up with non-binding principles on crypto policy for their member-states. * The aggressively pro-escrow position of the U.S. is meeting resistance during the meetings. * Key, limelight delegates are concerned about the shroud of secrecy surrounding the talks, and the effect it has on furthering crypto-conspiracy fears. * The commercial and law enforcement perspective is more represented than privacy concerns. One delegate said that a North American country "made others unhappy" by their stance. (Without saying who was unhappy or why.) But the person also said that the most important parts of the meeting took place during the coffee breaks -- which offer chances not just for different countries to discuss issues, but for national delegations to negotiate their stances among themselves Another delegate vilified the position of the crypto experts who spoke against "key escrow" at a conference here Wednesday -- especially Whitfield Diffie -- alleging that cryptographers have commercial motives for the positions they advocate. The delegate said that the business community was in favor of key escrow, and that technical people approach key escrow as a technical problem, although the system can be easily put into place and iron out their worries. That remark may have been aimed at Matt Blaze, the AT&T Bell Laboratories scientist, who at yesterday's conference explained that key escrow would entail a high cost and a major risk. The person -- the only one who didn't have the top button of his shirt unbuttoned and wear his tie loosely -- defended key escrow by saying that car dealers can make keys based on the registration number on the windshields, but that people aren't in an uproar. I responded by pointing out that "If you look at U.S. politics over the past 20 years, you'd probably feel more comfortable giving your crypto keys to your car dealer than your government." Others at the table said that it would be good to issue a press release after the meeting finishes Friday, and a more substantial one than was issued when the group met last December. The person said that such a public communique should be specific and mention all the issues involved. They also noted that the OECD's secrecy led to wrong assumptions on the nature of the talks in the crypto community. Another person explained that OECD's "recommendations" would be non-binding guidelines for the member countries. As for the process itself, some at the table said that the OECD had a deadline, which the organization is not used to operating under, but that it was such an urgent issue that there was no other way. Separately, one of the delegates at the dinner said that the OECD would likely meet its deadline of February to issue the report. The deadline was announced in July by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno at the G-7 conference on terrorism in Paris. After about 20 minutes, the delegates paid the bill and returned to their hotels. But we in the Net community are left with picking up the tab. ###
Current thread:
- IP: WIDE-EYED OECD DELEGATES POLITELY ACCOSTED BY JOURNALIST Dave Farber (Sep 29)