Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow

Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net> wrote
>On Fri, 1 Dec 1995 JR@ns.cnb.uam.es wrote:
>
>> From:	SMTP%"tcmay@got.net"  1-DEC-1995 12:26:55.99
>
...
>
>You need to think real hard about how likely foreign customers on a scale 
>as large as the U.S. government are going to be attracted to a product 
>that forfeits its keys to the U.S. government.  Consider this problem 
>again in light of all the hand waving about the U.S. intelligence 
>agencies and industrial espionage/intelligence.

	I do, and I reckon most people, at this level now, worry more
about how nice pages look than their security. Mostly because there is
comparatively little interest yet. That's the whole issue: a company that
is aware of that and wants to be the first at occupying the market will
give security a second priority level -as most users do-. Look e.g. at
any OS and how secure it is...

	I'm not defending Netscape, I argue about the reasons that drive
the market and most companies -Netscape among them-.

> 
>Let's put this example in a more personal context, with you as the 
>netscape guru.  In fact, let us carry that assumption along, as really 
>I'm talking to the netscape insiders to begin with.

	Please, not that I have no liaison to Netscape. But I don't like all
this broohaha about whether this or that guy is evil because s/he does/
doesn't hold with some principles/ends.

	If one wants to be effective, one needs to understand the other
side's point of view, so as to be able to develop coherent strategies that
work.

	Independently of what *my* personal convictions are -which I
have never stated-, you can't forget that not everybody holds to your
same ethics or needs to.

...
>
>Your faith in Joe Random vastly exceeds mine.

	So it seems. Anyway, that's the only resource we have. If Joe
Random doesn't care, then it doesn't matter too much what you or me
can say. Nor would it be correct that we imposed our view to the
majority of Joes.


...
>Your information cost is lower by a factor of 100 or more.  Putting the 
>burden on our shoulders, and then couching it in terms of the cypherpunks 
>being negative, when indeed we are merely pointing out to whoever will 
>listen that a spineless money decision has been made, is the center of 
>hyprocracy.  It sickens me.

	Again, I'm not Netscape. So, don't tell *me*. If it sickens you
the position of anyone, I'm sorry. It may sicken me too, but I don't
think that only will change how things are (sic).

...
>As does this psycho-babble trash.

	It may be trash. But it works. Sorry if you don't like it, but
that's how humans are.

>So when pinto's explode, I might as well just advertize hondas as a 
>'better value' and not mention the rather glaring fault in the competing 
>product?

	Well, that -as I said- may depend on where you are. In some
countries you could sue them, but you could not *say* they are bad.
Odd, isn't it? But so it is.

>I might add, few cypherpunks (to their great credit) sell their 
>software.  We are interested in the software being the strongest, and 
>best quality.
>
	So do I. And that's what I suggested: better alternatives. If
there are some, then market forces will drive everything to our side.
Just by making people angry we won't gain much.

..
>You mean to realize that Netscape could care less about the 'educated' 
>consumer who is displeased with the decision, and instead is following 
>that large nose which sniffs the waifting scent of green?

	Exactly. If you realize that, you know what the problem is. If
you assume any company has to be bounded by any cypherpunkish ideas,
which in addition hurt their business, then you are not addressing the
real problem.

...
>Either support GAK or do not.  Don't give us horseshit about how you 
>think we are being too hard on Netscape because we are educated 
>consumers, and because we realize that GAK crypto is not the best product it 
>could be.

	Sorry man, but as soon as Democracy comes in, elites go out the
window. It's the domain of the common man. If the common man doesn't hold
with the opinions of the educated man, then the educated man has nothing
to do.

>It is as much our right to gripe and moan about the spineless decision as 
>it is for you to make it.  To tell us to ignore it is hypocritical in the 
>extreme.  If your product is so superior, why the hell should you care 
>about a few cypherpunks moaning about this or that?  Aren't we members of 

	You can gripe or moan or do as you wish. So do I, and I chose to
express my opinion that educating the common man is more effective.

	And once more: it's not my product. I have nothing to do with 
Netscape. All I want is energies derived into effective courses.

>Take your emotional censorship elsewhere.  And while your at it, try 
>making a superior product to please us, rather than some high-school 
>textbook psycho-babble about saying only nice things to the other 
>children in the sandbox.

	I fear it is you who's becoming emotional and censoring. I didn't
tell anybody to take his/her opinions anywhere else. I'm only exposing what
my opinion is on how cryptography should be promoted and what is the
-in my humble opinion- best course of action.

	As for "children in the sandbox"... it also seems I have some more
respect for those "Joe Random"s than you do. And even if they are so, I
prefer to take them into adulthood rather than keeping crypto priesthood
to myself and pontificing them what they should do relying on me.

				jr

On Mon, 4 Dec 1995 JR@ns.cnb.uam.es wrote:

> Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net> wrote
> >On Fri, 1 Dec 1995 JR@ns.cnb.uam.es wrote:

> > 
> >Let's put this example in a more personal context, with you as the 
> >netscape guru.  In fact, let us carry that assumption along, as really 
> >I'm talking to the netscape insiders to begin with.
> 
> 	Please, not that I have no liaison to Netscape. But I don't like all
> this broohaha about whether this or that guy is evil because s/he does/
> doesn't hold with some principles/ends.
> 
> 	If one wants to be effective, one needs to understand the other
> side's point of view, so as to be able to develop coherent strategies that
> work.
> 
> 	Independently of what *my* personal convictions are -which I
> have never stated-, you can't forget that not everybody holds to your
> same ethics or needs to.

I'm afraid you have missed the point too.

I don't care as much what the personal positions are, or what the ethical 
center from which person x or person y works.

I am most distressed because of what I see as a snowjob.

"We are anti-GAK"

Great, tell me what you have done to prevent GAK from proliferating.

In the absence of an answer to that challenge, I have to question the 
first statement as fluff or PR.

This has nothing to do with Netscape sharing my opinion, or not sharing 
my view on the evil of GAK.  It has to do with putting up or shutting 
up.  I have been told that Netscape agrees with me, or will agree with 
me, I just don't know that I believe it yet.


> 
> ...
> >
> >Your faith in Joe Random vastly exceeds mine.
> 
> 	So it seems. Anyway, that's the only resource we have. If Joe
> Random doesn't care, then it doesn't matter too much what you or me
> can say. 

Uh... read the above again real carefully.  Think real hard about what 
you have said.

> Nor would it be correct that we imposed our view to the
> majority of Joes.

Isn't that what happens every day?  Or did something go anarchy while I 
wasn't watching?

> 
> ...
> >Your information cost is lower by a factor of 100 or more.  Putting the 
> >burden on our shoulders, and then couching it in terms of the cypherpunks 
> >being negative, when indeed we are merely pointing out to whoever will 
> >listen that a spineless money decision has been made, is the center of 
> >hyprocracy.  It sickens me.
> 
> 	Again, I'm not Netscape. So, don't tell *me*. If it sickens you
> the position of anyone, I'm sorry. It may sicken me too, but I don't
> think that only will change how things are (sic).
> ...
> >As does this psycho-babble trash.
> 
> 	It may be trash. But it works. Sorry if you don't like it, but
> that's how humans are.

And this is what I am talking about.  Statements from Netscape and her 
employees are beginning to look more and more like mere fluff, lies, and 
time-buyers based on the belief that this kind of psycho babble is the 
way to conduct your affairs.

> >So when pinto's explode, I might as well just advertize hondas as a 
> >'better value' and not mention the rather glaring fault in the competing 
> >product?
> 
> 	Well, that -as I said- may depend on where you are. In some
> countries you could sue them, but you could not *say* they are bad.
> Odd, isn't it? But so it is.

I know of no country that forbids private parties (cypherpunks list) from 
pointing out flaws and concerns with a product.  (accepting of course 
those countries which lack the basic free speech, or where the government 
owned industry is being commented on).  Your complaint about the 
potential liability of such statements was in reference to the 
cypherpunks, or at least a few on the list, being 'negative' about 
Netscape.  A private action for that, when based on fact, isn't 
actionable anywhere I know about.

> >I might add, few cypherpunks (to their great credit) sell their 
> >software.  We are interested in the software being the strongest, and 
> >best quality.
> >
> 	So do I. And that's what I suggested: better alternatives. If
> there are some, then market forces will drive everything to our side.
> Just by making people angry we won't gain much.

Its the angry customer who walks out and takes his consumer cash 
elsewhere.  It amazes me how content everyone is to limit themselves.

> ..
> >You mean to realize that Netscape could care less about the 'educated' 
> >consumer who is displeased with the decision, and instead is following 
> >that large nose which sniffs the waifting scent of green?
> 
> 	Exactly. If you realize that, you know what the problem is. If
> you assume any company has to be bounded by any cypherpunkish ideas,
> which in addition hurt their business, then you are not addressing the
> real problem.

I don't have a problem with the company that is money grubbing until they 
try to convince me that they are not and then fail utterly to back it up.
One might even say that's a form of fraud.

> ...
> >Either support GAK or do not.  Don't give us horseshit about how you 
> >think we are being too hard on Netscape because we are educated 
> >consumers, and because we realize that GAK crypto is not the best product it 
> >could be.
> 
> 	Sorry man, but as soon as Democracy comes in, elites go out the
> window. It's the domain of the common man. If the common man doesn't hold
> with the opinions of the educated man, then the educated man has nothing
> to do.

Except try and educate the common man.  Look like anything that has been 
going on here on the list?  Duh.

> >It is as much our right to gripe and moan about the spineless decision as 
> >it is for you to make it.  To tell us to ignore it is hypocritical in the 
> >extreme.  If your product is so superior, why the hell should you care 
> >about a few cypherpunks moaning about this or that?  Aren't we members of 
> 
> 	You can gripe or moan or do as you wish. So do I, and I chose to
> express my opinion that educating the common man is more effective.

And griping and moaning isn't educating the common man because...?

> 	And once more: it's not my product. I have nothing to do with 
> Netscape. All I want is energies derived into effective courses.

Like sitting on hands.  Like admitting "there is nothing for (us) to do?"

> >Take your emotional censorship elsewhere.  And while your at it, try 
> >making a superior product to please us, rather than some high-school 
> >textbook psycho-babble about saying only nice things to the other 
> >children in the sandbox.
> 
> 	I fear it is you who's becoming emotional and censoring. I didn't
> tell anybody to take his/her opinions anywhere else.
 I'm only exposing what
> my opinion is on how cryptography should be promoted and what is the
> -in my humble opinion- best course of action.
> 
> 	As for "children in the sandbox"... it also seems I have some more
> respect for those "Joe Random"s than you do. And even if they are so, I
> prefer to take them into adulthood rather than keeping crypto priesthood
> to myself and pontificing them what they should do relying on me.

I'd be happy if Joe Random became Joe Crypto.  Unlike you, I just don't 
assume that it has already happened.

> 
> 				jr
> 

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information

Black Unicorn writes:
>I am most distressed because of what I see as a snowjob.
>
>"We are anti-GAK"
>
>Great, tell me what you have done to prevent GAK from proliferating.

This is a poor argument.

I'd consider myself "anti-war", though I've done nothing more than
argue against it and behave peacefully myself.  I've even heard
"pro-war" arguments and considered some of them valid, though not
enough to change my opinion.

Netscape has pretty clearly said that they don't like the idea of GAK,
and that in fora where such things are discussed, they'll argue against
it.  They've also said that they won't let mandatory GAK put them out
of business.  That *doesn't* make them pro-GAK.

Jim Clark hasn't made any statements to the effect that *Netscape*
supports GAK (quite the contrary), but he *has* noted the government
position --- "GAK is necessary for law enforcement".

On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Scott Brickner wrote:

> Black Unicorn writes:
> >I am most distressed because of what I see as a snowjob.
> >
> >"We are anti-GAK"
> >
> >Great, tell me what you have done to prevent GAK from proliferating.
> 
> This is a poor argument.

It would be if there were not some context here.  For example:

> 
> I'd consider myself "anti-war", though I've done nothing more than
> argue against it and behave peacefully myself.  I've even heard
> "pro-war" arguments and considered some of them valid, though not
> enough to change my opinion.

Yet I've not heard anyone else arguing, e.g., that you have done more to 
promote anti-war ideals than anyone else. (A case that was made for 
Netscape and crypto)  I have also not heard you assert that you are 
actively lobbying against war.  (As employees and others have argued 
Netscape is doing)  I have also not heard you flip flop on your 
position.  (Which in my view, and other's, Netscape has).  Were you in a 
position where you had a great deal of infulence over war policy, I think 
you would agree that others asking 'what exactly have you done to 
eliminate war' is not quite as alien to the context of your example.

In short, your example is argumentation by reduction.

> Netscape has pretty clearly said that they don't like the idea of GAK,

Their employees have also asserted that they are working actively to 
discourage GAK, that they are lobbying to get it (insert ambigious words 
here) and on every attempt to get some clairification I have seen 
hedging, assertions that quickly dissolved under the mildist prodding, 
and snowjobbing.

> and that in fora where such things are discussed, they'll argue against
> it.  They've also said that they won't let mandatory GAK put them out
> of business.  That *doesn't* make them pro-GAK.

It certainly doesn't make them active "anti-GAK" either.  Netscape needs 
to realize that the sword they carry is sharp.  If they choose not to use 
it, I want to know why.  Actually, even if I don't know why, I don't 
care, so long as they don't lie or decieve, throwing up thin veils to 
conceal their lack of organization, appreciation of their position, or 
simple laziness and lack of concern.

> Jim Clark hasn't made any statements to the effect that *Netscape*
> supports GAK (quite the contrary), but he *has* noted the government
> position --- "GAK is necessary for law enforcement".
> 

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information