Re: Andy Grove on Clipper

At 10:41 AM 06/16/94 -0700, Vinod Valloppillil wrote:

>        Then, the editor from Newsweek said that in any show about the "Data 
>Superhighway" the Clipper chip had to be discussed.  He then went on to 
>say (and occasionally apologizing to Gore for being blunt) how the chip 
>and the whole program were "loathed" by the industry and privacy 
>advocates.  Larry asked Groves what he thought about it and he went off 
>talking about the govt's legitimate right to tap analog media and how 
>all this chip did was to extend that right into the digital realm.  I 
>was shocked.  Even worse, Al Gore supported Andy's position and then 
>when Larry King got back to the editor, he backed off saying "well, I 
>just heard that people in the industry didn't like it." Larry asked for 
>his opinion on it as a provider of information services and he said, 
>"we just report on public opinions in our magazine and don't try to 
>take positions on the issues.

That was Vic Sussman, from US News and World Report. I didn't see the
Larry King Piece, but I have talked with Sussman before. He is very
old school journalist, and was asked what he thinks 'as a provider of
information services.' He gave the partyline, 'as a provider of information
services.' When I am asked about something 'as a small magazine publisher,'
for instance (one of the few things that gets me questioned like that
:), I respond as one. No publisher is gonna let people talk about touchy
issues in an official capacity- it isn't professional and cause _tons_ of
problems for no good reason. Yes, that can be used as a lame excuse,
but there are many times it isn't. 

Grove, on the other hand, has no place making statements like that,
unless Intel has a political science wing I haven't heard of.

>        Yuck.

I do agree with you on this.
:)
-j

Jamie Lawrence writes:
 > Grove, on the other hand, has no place making statements like that,
 > unless Intel has a political science wing I haven't heard of.

My recollections from a brief stint with Intel in the early 80's is
that the company is quite conservative, and that Mr. Grove's personal
outlook is largely responsible.  Before I get torched, I hasten to
point out that "conservative" does not of course necessarily imply
"Clipper supporter"; there are certain statist philosophies that do so
imply, however, and some of those can be lumped into the category
"conservative".

I could be way wrong.  Perhaps Mr. May could add more.  It is
distressing (though not surprising) to know that there are individuals
in positions of power in cyberspace-related industries who hold
opinions antithetical to "ours".

--
| GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>       |
| TAKE TWA TO CAIRO.          ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX:        |
|     (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |

Mike McNally wrote:

> Jamie Lawrence writes:
>  > Grove, on the other hand, has no place making statements like that,
>  > unless Intel has a political science wing I haven't heard of.
> 
> My recollections from a brief stint with Intel in the early 80's is
> that the company is quite conservative, and that Mr. Grove's personal
> outlook is largely responsible.  Before I get torched, I hasten to
> point out that "conservative" does not of course necessarily imply
> "Clipper supporter"; there are certain statist philosophies that do so
> imply, however, and some of those can be lumped into the category
> "conservative".
> 
> I could be way wrong.  Perhaps Mr. May could add more.  It is
> distressing (though not surprising) to know that there are individuals
> in positions of power in cyberspace-related industries who hold
> opinions antithetical to "ours".
 
Caveats: I knew Grove moderately well when I was at Intel. I didn't
see the CNN episode mentioned here. 

Yes, Grove is probably a conservative--he's at least a Republican
(supported Bush). However, such terms are misleading. Clipper comes
out of a "liberal" administration, not Reagan/Bush (though it no doubt
started there...).
     
Support or non-support for the crypto issue is complicated. Many of
those being asked what they think have not given the issue much deep
thought, and the phrasing of questions is key. 

What is more accurate to say is that the "power structure" in general
is, as it usually is, worried by loss of its power and its ability to
instill fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Whether it's claims of         
terrorism, child pornographers, or tax evaders, the national security
state will push for any and all laws that preserve and enhance its
power.                                                              
                                                                        
I expect nothing from politicians, nor from corporate executives asked
to comment on public policy. Would we expect them to endorse crypto
anarchy? Tools that undermine their own corporate cultures?  Doesn't
mean they're "right," to the extent "right" and "wrong" has anything
to do with things. (I've written extensively about this, and won't
here.)
  
As for Grove, he escaped from Hungary as a teenager, excelled in
school (incl. CUNY, Berkeley), became the leading MOS researcher
(making MOS stable was a very big deal in the mid-60s and enabled
Intel to begin its course to the top of the heap in ICs). He's
personally liberal in a lot of areas, fiscally conservative, and
things like crypto are complicated issues.

The debate is being presented--cf. the recent articles and comments
by Denning, Parker, Gore, etc.--as an issue of keeping "fortress-like"
crypto out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. This even while
Clipper advocates cheerfully admit it won't cause criminals and such
to use Clipper! Anyway, when the debate is couched this way, I'm not
at all surprised that folks like Grove would adopt the party line.

I never have thought we can win the hearts and minds of voteres. Too
many of them have shown a demonstrated willingness to use the State to
steal my property, to invade my home, to tell me I have to have some
permission slip to do something, etc. I don't have  time to elaborate
on this point here, but what strong crypto allows is and end-run
around democracy. And that's why many of us support strong crypto.


--Tim May
  


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."