Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 11/30/95 3:07 AM, Futplex quoted:

>> http://www.cnet.com/Central/News/govt.html
 ...
>---------------------------------------------
 ...
> said Clark. He added that an invincible security system for the Net is 
> possible, but such a system won't be built unless the government has a stake 
> in it. "That's where key escrow comes in," said Clark. 
>---------------------------------------------

      "A stake in its heart," more like.

Futplex then wrote:

 ...
>Netscape's web pages. I hope they will at least have the courage to put out a
>"We Support Clipper II" press release. Now the question is, how much of a
>role does Netscape Communications intend to play in implementing GAK, and
>what can we do to counter it ?

      Well, spamming the sign won't do.

      Aleph One's suggestion -- an NS-hack or "virus" -- doesn't make any
sense: if Perry or someone would vet a hacked copy, I'd use it in a
second. But hacking it would involve a violation of the license, so hacked
versions couldn't be offered in any above-ground way: there'd be no way to
certify a hacked copy with a trusted nym's key.
      Netscape is between a rock and a hard place: I think it's safe to
say that, were all things equal, NS would support strong crypto. The fact
that NS has decided otherwise suggests that some pressure was applied:
Clark says as much. This leads me to believe that one possibly effective
(and possibly dangerous) tactic might lie in a seriously sustained attack
on NS's reputation -- keeping up a meme-drumbeat of "you can't trust
Netscape, that's all, you'll get ripped off." I think we should try it --
TODAY, now, persistently and loudly, until NS comes around. I'm not saying
that this'll be enough, but it's a start. TODAY. And I really don't care
what it takes: calling cronies in the press, spreading innuendo, redoing
NS icon sets so there's a spy from "Spy Versus Spy" loitering behind the
N... I've seen some nice "NO Netscape" tags on GNU-related pages. Let's do
it.


Hieronymous
FB DD B5 C8 FB F4 52 41  F0 0F A0 6E 99 43 75 06
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBML1vc73g0mNE55u1AQGfdgIAsldR3e9UQZG9//38B9LrU/HnCSzaY1kB
RMOcBdab5EZ2X9BXkA7lIdDJUUqHOykuv1oyFDtitWRsXxmaTb0cuw==
=0FmD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Anonymous wrote:

>       Aleph One's suggestion -- an NS-hack or "virus" -- doesn't make any
> sense: if Perry or someone would vet a hacked copy, I'd use it in a
> second. But hacking it would involve a violation of the license, so hacked
> versions couldn't be offered in any above-ground way: there'd be no way to
> certify a hacked copy with a trusted nym's key.

	You seem to have missed the point. A "virus" is not there to fix
your copy because you want it. Its there because I  want it. I would
be released so that infects all possible machines. It would either
remove the rutines in netsape that allow escrow or simple remove the 
offensive copy of netscape ( cant use it if its not there 8)
Violation of the license? really? Like virus writers give a damm.

>       Netscape is between a rock and a hard place: I think it's safe to
> say that, were all things equal, NS would support strong crypto. The fact
> that NS has decided otherwise suggests that some pressure was applied:
> Clark says as much. This leads me to believe that one possibly effective
> (and possibly dangerous) tactic might lie in a seriously sustained attack
> on NS's reputation -- keeping up a meme-drumbeat of "you can't trust
> Netscape, that's all, you'll get ripped off." I think we should try it --
> TODAY, now, persistently and loudly, until NS comes around. I'm not saying
> that this'll be enough, but it's a start. TODAY. And I really don't care
> what it takes: calling cronies in the press, spreading innuendo, redoing
> NS icon sets so there's a spy from "Spy Versus Spy" loitering behind the
> N... I've seen some nice "NO Netscape" tags on GNU-related pages. Let's do
> it.

	Yes and you must remember the power of the net. As an example remember
the heat Microsoft took for the Registration Wizard what all it does is 
ASK YOU if you would like to submit the recorded information about your 
computer to Microsoft. It was so blow out of proportion that it even made 
it to places that would check this kinda of stuff like Information Week.

> 
> Hieronymous
> FB DD B5 C8 FB F4 52 41  F0 0F A0 6E 99 43 75 06
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
> 
> iQBVAwUBML1vc73g0mNE55u1AQGfdgIAsldR3e9UQZG9//38B9LrU/HnCSzaY1kB
> RMOcBdab5EZ2X9BXkA7lIdDJUUqHOykuv1oyFDtitWRsXxmaTb0cuw==
> =0FmD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

Aleph One / aleph1@dfw.net
http://underground.org/
KeyID 1024/948FD6B5 
Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61  8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01