[1037] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: (Fwd) New crypto bill clears committee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Shostack)
Fri Jun 20 13:31:07 1997
From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19691231160000.006c2884@best.com> from "geeman@best.com" at "Jun 20, 97 09:39:53 am"
To: geeman@best.com
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:47:56 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
Thats what the 11 cryptographers study is.
(www.crypto.com/key_study). Talks about risks of GAK, only it calls
it key recovery.
Adam
geeman@best.com wrote:
| you'd better be able to show a bad-for-business case.
|
| At 07:56 AM 6/20/97 -0400, Adam Shostack wrote:
| >I plan to spend a substaintial portion of my day explaining to the
| >large companies I consult with that this is a very bad thing, and they
| >should be opposing its advance.
| >
| >I intend to take the 11 cryptographers paper as my primary tack, and
| >am wondering if anyone has any other good "upper management" type
| >arguments that I should use.
| >
| >Adam
| >
| >
| >Peter Trei wrote:
| >
| >| New crypto bill clears committee
| >| By Alex Lash
| >| June 19, 1997, 11 a.m. PT
| >|
| >| just in Just two days after it was introduced, a bill that seeks
| >| to impose restrictions on the domestic use of encryption sailed
| >| without hearings through the Senate Commerce Committee.
| >
| >
|
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-Hume
