Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: food for thought.... [ I fully agree with this!! djf]
From: David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 19:22:16 -0400
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 ************************************************************************
Current thread:
- IP: food for thought.... [ I fully agree with this!! djf] David Farber (Sep 20)