Netscape, Corporations, and GAK Support

Picking up on Tim's and Atilla's comments on Netscape, GAK,
   a WTO czar and government regulation of security on the
   Net:

   Jim Clark's speech was probably a trial balloon, to see
   what the reaction would be. Remember that the NIST
   conference on KE is December 5.

   It would make sense for the corporations to welcome
   application of police power to handle threats to public
   order, in cyberworld like the other. That way they reduce
   culpability for failures of their private security systems,
   as they do on private real estate property.

   Key escrow requires someplace for the buck to stop beyond
   several private pitstops, and that is usually Uncle Sugar
   when no other party has the resources to withstand
   sustained, substantial, culture-wide risk -- as, say, in
   the financial realm. Internationally, the same need exists.

   Probably the corporations  would like to work in concert
   with governments on this, so no single firm, or nation,
   gets stigmatized, or wounded and prey to vultures -- as
   Netscape was with the brute hack, and as Microsoft and
   others have been with other attacks on their lightly
   guarded property, or as the US might be if it does not work
   out international agreements.

   Moreover, it has been noted here that government contracts
   are crucial for a new company -- for testing, for
   credibility, for prestige. All the major players already
   have such vital contracts -- indeed most would not have
   thrived without them -- so why would Netscape, and its 
   investors, not want them too?

   It's possible that Netscape was selected to sound off on KE
   to see if it could play with the Big Boys -- take the heat,
   pass initiation, qualify for the Bohemian Grove bear hugs
   of assured stability, growth and profits.
   
   Could be, though, that after getting stable R/E for his 
   backers, Jim will be confident enough to join Pixar in that 
   rhumba risk of mercurial, evanescent mass-marketers.

   That's not to be believed now at 7,000 times earnings.

Folks, lay of Netscape on this one. _EVERYONE_ is doing Terissa for the feds to
use themselves. There are reporting requirements (FOI) which most people on this 
list seem to enjoy which make the privacy issue moot. There are other people who do 
not want to have non escrowed data flowing over their internal nets, nuclear 
installations etc.

When I was involved in the site security area there was no way I would allow 
messages to be bouncing round the internal net which I could not read. They
might well be from trojan horses planted inside the net sending data out.

Key escrow is not bad in itself. It is the idea that individuals be forced to 
use it for private conversations that is the bad idea.


If people want to argue "make the technology avaliable and it will be abused" then
let them. Just remember that we normally argue the other side of the case.


		Phill