creepy
This was originally written on 03.02.2002.
This is pretty creepy, though not in the same way as Rob’s dream (see below). I was reading Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schneier and found this passage towards the end of chapter 4:
Key escrow has considerable disadvantages. The use has to trust the escrow agents’ security procedures, as well as the integrity of the people involved. He has to trust the escrow agents not to change their policies, the government not to change its laws, and those with lawful authority to get his keys to do so lawfully and responsibly. Imagine a major terrorist attack in New Yorkl what sorts of limits on the police would be thrown aside in the aftermath?
I agree with Schneier that escrow is a bad, bad idea. Primarily, it’s very clear that it won’t keep criminals and terrorists from using non-escrowed crypto. Similarly, there are enough empirical examples to be reluctant to entrust one’s keys to the government or to big business. However, I think the idea of mandatory escrow is going to continue to be thrown around, and it is probably only a matter of time before key escrow becomes overwhelmingly frequent, if not mandatory. So why not establish a network of escrow agents who can be trusted to a greater degree than government or business? “Sure I’ll use escrowed keys, but you, Uncle Sam, can only have part of the key, the other parts are escrowed with the ACLU and the EFF.” If the hypothetical ACLU escrow service is implemented and used, say for the keypair that I use to send my grandmother birthday e-mails, then such escrow agents become a legitimate entity in the escrow debate and could offer an additional level of protection against state abuse of escrow systems.