> The proposed scheme would carry substantial expense compared to a single key. If Apple (for example) hosts the escrow keys, then who pays that cost? Who has t

> The proposed scheme would carry substantial expense compared to a single key. If Apple (for example) hosts the escrow keys, then who pays that cost? Who has the right incentives to build a very costly but more secure system? I understood that was the whole point. If you're going to build a key escrow mechanism that isn't prone to universal, zero-effort abuse, there are going to be all kinds external factors that need to be considered. Ted's article lays out the requirements to show just how bad the idea of key escrow is, including the measures that would be necessary to make it acceptably insecure. (Key escrow is - and remains - defective by design.)