[3725] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: my two cents
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ed Gerck)
Sat Dec 5 23:21:44 1998
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 16:56:15 -0200 (EDT)
From: Ed Gerck <egerck@laser.cps.softex.br>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@hoffman.vix.com>
cc: Carl Ellison <cme@acm.org>, perry@piermont.com, cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <199812051725.MAA13032@grosse.fugue.com>
On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> Although I share your anger and desire for a show-down, I worry about the
>> result. Back when the Clipper chip was fresh in the papers was the time for
>> this showdown. There is so little awareness on the public's part today
>> about crypto that I would be surprised if a mass movement of the people
>> speaking to Congress would come out at all in our favor.
>
>Actually, there's a presidential election coming up in the United
>States shortly. One of the candidates for President, a certain Mr. Al
>Gore, is also a strong proponent of controls on strong crypto.
As a temporary resident in a country which does not subscribe to the
Wassenaar "Agreement" (on grounds of a foreign policy that affirms
that any country is entitled to self-determination for its internal
affairs, in all matters), I want to comment that:
- I too share the sense of utter disbelief not only of "what" but
also of "how" that was decided. No self-determination there.
- Only about 5% of the Internet e-mail traffic is encrypted.
- The key-escrow initiative has (successfully?) created much
doubt on the future real efficacy of encryption.
- The public perceives that encryption products are cumbersome and
actually involve several *new* security risks vis a vis the
situation sans encryption -- due to forgotten passwords, proverbial
trucks, complicated key management, compromised keys, uncertainties
in CRL validation, etc.
So, privacy is a good argument but, no cigar. It measures up to 5%.
However, I may remind this list that all that could change if
cryptography would be really necessary for Internet *functional*
needs.
Many months ago I publicly called for comments, help and
collaboration on a method which could provide that reason and excuse
-- for the very basic functional task of Internet routing -- which is
being discussed and developed in an open effort, in all its aspects
and with a standing invitation to participation.
See "[MCG] logical semantics and crypto handle ambiguous names"
at the mcg-talk list archives at
http://www.mcg.org.br/cgi-bin/lwg-mcg/MCG-TALK/archives/
The introduction has further reasoning on "crypto: use if needed"
thoughts as I briefly mentioned above and compares the crypto
situation with the situation of radio receivers/trasmitters a while
ago, and how society self-routed around the block. A historic lesson?
Perhaps.
This could have the further benefit of addressing the similar
"agreement" attitudes I see reflected in ICANN, by allowing
easy creation of any number of secondary roots and opening up
the DNS name space away from the center and into the Net's edges:
each one of us.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
______________________________________________________________________
Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck egerck@novaware.cps.softex.br
http://novaware.cps.softex.br
