<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Christian Huitema <<a href="mailto:huitema@huitema.net" class="">huitema@huitema.net</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">From the summary description of the proposal, it appears to use a "fragmented golden key." The classic golden key approach is to provide to authorities a copy of someone's private key, encrypted with the golden key.</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class=""><div class="">Imagine giving the pieces to the members of the FISA Court? A set of N like-minded judges of a court without diversity? </div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>• <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/politics/robertss-picks-reshaping-secret-surveillance-court.html" class="">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/politics/robertss-picks-reshaping-secret-surveillance-court.html</a> </div></div><div class="">Or worse, N organizations that must return their piece when presented with a FISA warrant signed by a single judge (from the like minded pool). </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Looking at the whole process, why is a fragmented key is better than a single golden key?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>