|
Grex > Coop8 > #99: Should Grex support the Golden Key Campaign? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
ajax
|
|
Should Grex support the Golden Key Campaign?
| 
Jul 31 01:38 UTC 1996 |
A new a new key-escrow cryptography proposal has risen from the ashes of
Clipper II. Wired recently ran a short article, "Still Sucks: Clipper III,"
excerpted below:
After the Clinton administration proposed new encryption policy in
May, opponents quickly dubbed it "Clipper III." Like the ill-advised
Clippers I and II, the new plan relies on the "key escrow" system,
which means you have to make the "keys" to your scrambled messages
available to law enforcement agencies. But they promise not to use
those keys unless you break the law. Honest....
The new plan allows for "self escrow," whereby a company or
individual is a certified "escrow agent." Small catch: The logistics
haven't been worked out. And to use your keys on a global basis,
you must submit them to foreign government representatives, who
also promise not to abuse their power. Honest!
As with the Communications Decency Act, the 'Net community is organizing
opposition. The "Internet Privacy Coalition," founded by Phil Zimmerman
and others, and supported by many organizations, has started a "Golden Key
Campaign" to raise awareness and support for the protection of the right
to private communications. By including a golden key link on web pages,
as with the blue ribbon campaign for free speech online, people can obtain
more info about current privacy issues (it links to www.privacy.org).
Should Grex, as with its past support of the Blue Ribbon campaign,
support the Golden Key campaign, and include an icon and link on our home
page with a statement of our support?
|
| 49 responses total. |
srw
|
|
response 1 of 49:
|
Jul 31 03:04 UTC 1996 |
I would argue that Grex should support this campaign strongly.
I plan to do so personally as well.
|
robh
|
|
response 2 of 49:
|
Jul 31 06:53 UTC 1996 |
Same here.
|
tsty
|
|
response 3 of 49:
|
Jul 31 07:13 UTC 1996 |
if this 'golden key campaign' is directed at keeping *all* gummints' mits
offen my decryption key ... you betcha!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 49:
|
Jul 31 07:24 UTC 1996 |
I'm in favor.
|
scott
|
|
response 5 of 49:
|
Jul 31 11:07 UTC 1996 |
Me too.
|
void
|
|
response 6 of 49:
|
Jul 31 11:25 UTC 1996 |
sounds like a good idea to me.
|
vgenegen
|
|
response 7 of 49:
|
Jul 31 12:12 UTC 1996 |
Sounds like a very good idea to me.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 8 of 49:
|
Jul 31 16:51 UTC 1996 |
I dont understand this (probably 'cause Im not a techie)...does
this propose that grex give the root password to an "escrow agent"
so the FBI an access all files in the event someone here seriously
breaks the law? Im confused...
|
pfv
|
|
response 9 of 49:
|
Jul 31 17:06 UTC 1996 |
Right...
Give the feds the password and let 'em read everything ;-)
/rotfl
/vampire
It has to do with the clipper-chip technology.. You know, the infamous
political thang from the last year or so?
|
tsty
|
|
response 10 of 49:
|
Jul 31 17:38 UTC 1996 |
kerouac ... re #8 .. that is what Klinton wants ... (as also president
for another 4 years) ... Golden Key Campaign is the OPPOSITE!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 49:
|
Jul 31 18:10 UTC 1996 |
Correct - we want the right to *privacy* of our personal communications,
which means the right to encrypt things with the highest available technology
and the right to give the key to whom we wish, and certainly not be required
to give it to the government.
|
ajax
|
|
response 12 of 49:
|
Jul 31 19:27 UTC 1996 |
The main intent is that people who *encrypt* data have to give a key to
an escrow agent. On Grex, the only data I know of that are routinely
encrypted *are* the passwords. And since they use a one-way encryption
system (so even staff can't decrypt them), and they're probably not
encrypted by a sufficiently tough algorithm, I'm not sure they'd fall under
this legislation. The root password itself isn't that important to the
gov't, since they can just seize Grex's hard drives, and hardly any of
their files are encrypted. What the government is more concerned about is
people using encryption for things like their e-mail, on their hard drives,
on Internet transactions, or for digital signal processing on an audio
conversation (via phone or 'Net). They want to be able to decrypt such
data for criminal or intelligence-gathering investigations. Strong
encryption for phone calls between organized crime members could make telco
wiretaps useless, for example.
|
pfv
|
|
response 13 of 49:
|
Jul 31 21:46 UTC 1996 |
You mean to say that organized crime is still so primitive they ain't
figgered out PGP and such for encryption? ;-)
Since they (organized crime) are at least as flush as our government
lately (more organized crime), I can't imagine them being so foolish as to
NOT be using encryption technologies - I'm pretty sure they can afford a
few major-league programmers, too ;-)
|
steve
|
|
response 14 of 49:
|
Jul 31 22:22 UTC 1996 |
I think it would be an excellent thing for Cyberspace Communications
to support this.
|
pfv
|
|
response 15 of 49:
|
Jul 31 22:49 UTC 1996 |
By all means, support this... Another point:
Add a link to the sites or Seneators, Representatives and
Governors use as well - perhaps triggering a form-letter of outrage? (by
all means, nicely worded though).
BTW, where is the grex page? I've seen Arbornuts, but have to see
the grex site..
|
scg
|
|
response 16 of 49:
|
Jul 31 23:59 UTC 1996 |
The Grex web page is at http://www.cyberspace.org.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with Grex, as an organization of lots of people with
various different opinions, taking political positions on issues. That said,
I've lost that argument before and it probably doesn't make snese to get into
it again.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 17 of 49:
|
Aug 1 00:05 UTC 1996 |
hmmm...has staff ever considered encrypting more or all of the
files on the hard drive? Mightb e a good security measure, in
case some wiseguy tries to break in and steal code or erase files.
Maybe thats a programmers prerogative though. I wouldnt blame jan or
steve if they wanted to encrypt the versoin of backtalk that ends up on
grex, in case someone wanted to steal the grex version rather than pay
them for a copy. Not that there's a hot black market for web-based
conferencing programs or anything...
|
srw
|
|
response 18 of 49:
|
Aug 1 04:55 UTC 1996 |
It is not practical to encrypt much, because you have to decrypt it to use
it. The CPU cost would make it infeasible.
Backtalk will be downlaodable, so encrypting it would be silly.
We have other methods planned for ensuring that it gets licensed.
|
ajax
|
|
response 19 of 49:
|
Aug 1 06:24 UTC 1996 |
Individual Grexers can encrypt files, if they go to the trouble of
obtaining or compiling an encryption program like PGP. Staff can't
encrypt *all* the files on the hard drives, or we wouldn't be able to
read anything :-). It could be a viable solution for certain things
though, like encrypting seldom-used sensitive source code, so it's
available when needed, but protected from root-crackers.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 49:
|
Aug 1 06:42 UTC 1996 |
Re #16 - is it a "political" issue? Isn't it just a matter of free
speech? If you want to talk in a language only one (or a few people)
can understand, why should you be prevented? I suppose politicians can
make it a political issue by taking one side or the other, but that's
*their* fault.
|
tsty
|
|
response 21 of 49:
|
Aug 1 06:55 UTC 1996 |
the gummint sure appreciated the Navaho language durng WWII ...
|
pfv
|
|
response 22 of 49:
|
Aug 1 15:11 UTC 1996 |
umm....
Anytime you have a topic that is based/derived from the Bill of
Rights, it is "political".. Protecting what you have and Defending against
Infringement is always political.
|
ajax
|
|
response 23 of 49:
|
Aug 1 15:47 UTC 1996 |
I agree with Steve that it's political. It's not clear-cut, or it
wouldn't be an issue. "Free speech" has exceptions, national security
issues among them. By labeling encryption algorithms "national security
secrets" (even though they're widely known), some politicians feel the
government can regulate their use.
I also share some concern about Grex promoting political issues. I
think it's clear enough that "Grex supports" means "the board voted to
support." I'm opposed to Grex donating money to campaigns from the
general fund, unless all members support it. But adding a web link to
increase public awareness is "free."
|
kerouac
|
|
response 24 of 49:
|
Aug 1 15:59 UTC 1996 |
Dont jump all over me but again I dont think grex should be taking
political positions without an official vote of the members. There
should have been a vote on whether to officially oppose the cda (even
though it would have been nearly unaninmous.) If someone is a member
of an organization, they have the right to be expect to be formaly
polled before any political positions are taken. It isnt right for
Board/Staff to assume consensus and presume to speak for them. Lets
use the !vote program on this type of thing, thats what its for isnt it?
|