Why Netscape employees should not leave...

At 8:33 AM 12/2/95, sameer wrote:
>>
>> So, for a 15% reduction in salary and 30 days of job search, is it worth it?
>
>        30 days? in silicon valley? you *must* be joking. (i suppose
>the market for good net-folks isn't as big over on the right coast.)

Just a minor clarification. I don't speak for any of the Netscape employees
here (nor am I encouraging them to leave...they cay do *more* within
Netscape than merely be resigning in some sort of protest).

The _salary_ figure is not the key issue. Stock options are. Their stock
options were almost certainly priced before the big run-up in price these
last few months, and most likely priced at the IPO price or even lower. It
is quite likely that these stock options are worth far, far more than
salary.

True, other companies offer stock options, but their Netscape options are
already "in the money" by a wide margin, which is an incredible incentive
to stick around.

I'm critical of Netscape, like others are, on various issues. But I sure do
hope we never turn this criticism into suggestions that Jeff and the other
Netscape folks here should quit in protest. That smacks too much of "you're
working for the war machine!" stridency. (Next we'll be having people dump
buckets of blood over piles of Netscape Navigator at Fry's.)

I read the Jim Clark statement that Jeff forwarded. It seemed noncomittal
on the actual issue of whether Netscape will build a U.S.-supported GAK (as
opposed to offering GAK for the Iraqis or French). I await with interest
the clarification of the anti-GAK stance that Jeff alluded to.

--Tim May

Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
Corralitos, CA              | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839      | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 8:33 AM 12/2/95, sameer wrote:
> >>
> >> So, for a 15% reduction in salary and 30 days of job search, is it worth it?
> >
> >        30 days? in silicon valley? you *must* be joking. (i suppose
> >the market for good net-folks isn't as big over on the right coast.)
> 
> Just a minor clarification. I don't speak for any of the Netscape employees
> here (nor am I encouraging them to leave...they cay do *more* within
> Netscape than merely be resigning in some sort of protest).

[...]

> I'm critical of Netscape, like others are, on various issues. But I sure do
> hope we never turn this criticism into suggestions that Jeff and the other
> Netscape folks here should quit in protest. That smacks too much of "you're
> working for the war machine!" stridency. (Next we'll be having people dump
> buckets of blood over piles of Netscape Navigator at Fry's.)

The point that should have come across was that it is hyprocracy for the 
Netscape employee to proport to be a strong crypto supporter of any great 
degree when the phrase 'the money is more important to me' could be applied.

I tend to agree that the resulting effect was instead a version of "if 
your not a part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

I just get sick of those who tout themselves as Experts in Software 
Munitions and are in fact are merely in it for the cash.  In it for the 
cash is just fine.  Just don't tell me later you aren't.

I don't care if Netscape makes a pile of money as of now.  Until they 
show themselves as a company with backbone in the area I consider 
important, my investment dollar goes elsewhere.

> 
> I read the Jim Clark statement that Jeff forwarded. It seemed noncomittal
> on the actual issue of whether Netscape will build a U.S.-supported GAK (as
> opposed to offering GAK for the Iraqis or French). I await with interest
> the clarification of the anti-GAK stance that Jeff alluded to.

I believe you got it with:

"If the law requires GAK, then I believe that we will implement it rather
than just disable encryption."

Note that the phrase is entirely ambigious on whether this refers to the 
law requiring GAK for export, or export AND domestic sales.  Netscape 
will install GAK into whatever will increase its sales.  I understand 
and respect this position in the context of a company which needs 
badly to start raking in some profits.  

The title "Software Munitions Expert" or similar such should probably be 
changed to "GAK marketing expert" however.

> --Tim May
> 
> Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government.
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> Corralitos, CA              | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Higher Power: 2^756839      | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
 

---
"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 wrote:
> I just get sick of those who tout themselves as Experts in Software
> Munitions and are in fact are merely in it for the cash.  In it for the
> cash is just fine.  Just don't tell me later you aren't.

  Can't I be a supporter of strong crypto, and also be in it for the money?
Many people here make good money off of crypto related work.  If I'm asked
to implement GAK in a situation where it is not mandated by law, I won't
do it.

> > I read the Jim Clark statement that Jeff forwarded. It seemed noncomittal
> > on the actual issue of whether Netscape will build a U.S.-supported GAK (as
> > opposed to offering GAK for the Iraqis or French). I await with interest
> > the clarification of the anti-GAK stance that Jeff alluded to.
> 
> I believe you got it with:
> 
> "If the law requires GAK, then I believe that we will implement it rather
> than just disable encryption."

  Tim was referring to the position statement against GAK that we will be
releasing before the NIST meeting next week.

> Note that the phrase is entirely ambigious on whether this refers to the
> law requiring GAK for export, or export AND domestic sales.  Netscape
> will install GAK into whatever will increase its sales.  I understand
> and respect this position in the context of a company which needs
> badly to start raking in some profits.

  What I meant, and have said in other places, is that if it is legal to
ship a product without GAK for use inside the US, or anywhere else,
I believe we will do it, because that is what our customers want.

> The title "Software Munitions Expert" or similar such should probably be
> changed to "GAK marketing expert" however.

  I'm sorry my dig at the ITAR does not ammuse you.  Your suggested
replacement would not be appropriate since I don't support GAK (I believe
that it is one of the most evil things any government could do to its
citizens), and I'm not in marketing.

	--Jeff

-- 
Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist
Netscape Communication Corporation
jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw
Any opinions expressed above are mine.

>   Can't I be a supporter of strong crypto, and also be in it for the money?
> Many people here make good money off of crypto related work.  If I'm asked
> to implement GAK in a situation where it is not mandated by law, I won't
> do it.

	Yes. You don't have to work at Netscape to make money doing
crypto. Witness the various crypto-related startups who do not support
key escrow. Comsec partners, electric communities, community
connexion, etc.
	(Not that you can't be a supporter of strong crypto and work
for netscape at the same time. The jury [in my mind] is still out on
that one)

-- 
sameer						Voice:   510-601-9777
Community ConneXion				FAX:     510-601-9734
The Internet Privacy Provider			Dialin:  510-658-6376
http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest")		sameer@c2.org

On Sun, 3 Dec 1995, Jeff Weinstein wrote:

> Black Unicorn wrote:
> > I just get sick of those who tout themselves as Experts in Software
> > Munitions and are in fact are merely in it for the cash.  In it for the
> > cash is just fine.  Just don't tell me later you aren't.
> 
>   Can't I be a supporter of strong crypto, and also be in it for the money?
> Many people here make good money off of crypto related work.  If I'm asked
> to implement GAK in a situation where it is not mandated by law, I won't
> do it.

You can be a supporter of strong crypto, and be in it for the money.  I 
do not believe you can be a supporter of strong crypto and not fight GAK 
tooth and nail, which I just don't see you doing.  Sure, you will obey 
the law, but will you do anything to influence it's development.

All insult and prodding aside, really ask yourself this.

You've been GIFTED with a position of immense political power and a 
strong and virbrant voice.  Why aren't you using it?  I know the answer 
because I've talked to the attornies.  Do YOU know it?

> > > I read the Jim Clark statement that Jeff forwarded. It seemed noncomittal
> > > on the actual issue of whether Netscape will build a U.S.-supported GAK (as
> > > opposed to offering GAK for the Iraqis or French). I await with interest
> > > the clarification of the anti-GAK stance that Jeff alluded to.
> > 
> > I believe you got it with:
> > 
> > "If the law requires GAK, then I believe that we will implement it rather
> > than just disable encryption."
> 
>   Tim was referring to the position statement against GAK that we will be
> releasing before the NIST meeting next week.

I think it's clear what you will say at NIST, and exactly what is has to 
do with Netscape's real position on the issue.

> 
> > Note that the phrase is entirely ambigious on whether this refers to the
> > law requiring GAK for export, or export AND domestic sales.  Netscape
> > will install GAK into whatever will increase its sales.  I understand
> > and respect this position in the context of a company which needs
> > badly to start raking in some profits.
> 
>   What I meant, and have said in other places, is that if it is legal to
> ship a product without GAK for use inside the US, or anywhere else,
> I believe we will do it, because that is what our customers want.

What you have ignored, and ignored in other places, is the fact the 
Netscape has a good deal of clout today.  If you were really for strong 
crypto, why aren't you using it, why isn't Netscape using it, to cripple 
GAK, and entirely doable endeavor, rather than just seeking some 
redundant 'clarification' of the current law, (which even it it's most 
mild intrepretation is below the threshold of acceptable to any strong 
crypto advocate)?

More to the point, why are you telling us what a strong crypto supporter 
you are instead of SHOWING us?

> > The title "Software Munitions Expert" or similar such should probably be
> > changed to "GAK marketing expert" however.
> 
>   I'm sorry my dig at the ITAR does not ammuse you.

I find it very amusing and clever.  I just don't think it's a title you 
deserve.

  Your suggested
> replacement would not be appropriate since I don't support GAK (I believe
> that it is one of the most evil things any government could do to its
> citizens),

So let's see some energy and action that supports that position.  Talk is 
cheap.

 and I'm not in marketing.

You missed your calling.  You've got Mr. Weinstein hanging on your every 
word.

> 	--Jeff
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist
> Netscape Communication Corporation
> jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw
> Any opinions expressed above are mine.
> 

---
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