14 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
http://www.cnet.com/Central/News/govt.html Bad. Very Bad. And I was almost starting to like Netscape. -- 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 Wed, 29 Nov 1995, sameer wrote: > http://www.cnet.com/Central/News/govt.html > > Bad. Very Bad. And I was almost starting to like Netscape. Ahh well there goes my respect for netscape to. *sight* Ahh well guess someone will just have to write a virus to say enhance all escrow equiped version of netscape that come out. Of course I dont have to point out to netscape we wont buy any escrowed products from them. Hmmm Open Market is starting to look better. > -- > 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 > 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
Jeff Weinstein writes: > have lots of stuff attributed to Jim, but very little of it is actual > quotes. Well, if there was in fact a speech made from which the pseudo-quotes in the article were taken, then surely the full text of that speech will be made available somewhere for clarification. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Nobody's going to listen to you if you just | Mike McNally (m5@tivoli.com) | | stand there and flap your arms like a fish. | Tivoli Systems, Austin TX | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sameer writes: > http://www.cnet.com/Central/News/govt.html I think this is sufficiently important for a partial quotation: --------------------------------------------- By Anne Knowles November 29, 1995, 12 p.m. PT BOSTON--Getting the government involved in maintaining Internet data privacy may not be popular, but it's going to be necessary. That's the message Netscape Communications chair Jim Clark delivered this morning in his keynote address to an audience here at Email World and Internet Expo. To secure Net communications, the government will need to have access to private data exchanges using what is known as a key escrow security system, 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. --------------------------------------------- > Bad. Very Bad. Agreed. As of a moment ago I could find absolutely no mention of this on 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 ? -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
| > http://www.cnet.com/Central/News/govt.html | | To secure Net communications, the government will need to have access to | private data exchanges using what is known as a key escrow security system, | 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. (Assuming this means Netscape intends to build-in key escrow, not lobby for it...) How does Netscape intend to address the liability issues if the key database is stolen and their *voluntary* actions lead to my private communications being exposed? Adam (Jeff, if you could pass this on to the powers that escrow, I'd appriciate it. I know you're here on behalf of you, but...) -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
sameer wrote: > > http://www.cnet.com/Central/News/govt.html > > Bad. Very Bad. And I was almost starting to like Netscape. Please don't give up on us yet. All press accounts I've read so far have lots of stuff attributed to Jim, but very little of it is actual quotes. There appears to be lots of paraphrasing and interpretation being done on the part of the reporters. The impression that I'm getting is that the press has blown a couple of small sound bites way out of proportion. The infoworld article that covers the same speech only devotes about 20% of the article to the key escrow topic, and is similarly devoid of actual quotes. I have not spoken to Jim about this, and I did not hear the talk myself, so I'm mostly reading between the lines here. After I saw the story earlier today I started asking around to see if the company had made any major policy shift in the direction of GAK, and wasn't able to turn up anything. If anything its the opposite. My feelings about key escrow, which were echo'd by several folks in management when I spoke to them today are: o Government mandated escrow would be a bad thing o There are some settings where escrow is good, in the corporate setting, or as a matter of person choice(to protect against loss of password) o The whole issue of escrow should be de-coupled from the export issue I don't want to go down in history as a facilitator of the totalitarian state, and I don't think anyone else here does either. I hope folks wait for press releases, product announcements, etc. before condemning us too much. Jim has made comments in the past that were quoted out of context, and blown way out of proportion to the point that some people believed that we were monitoring our user's every keystroke and sending it all back to the home office to generate huge demographic databases. I suspect that this is the same sort of thing, and I hope everyone will judge us by what we do. --Jeff PS - you won't find a LEF in the soon to be released SSL Version 3 spec... -- Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist Netscape Communication Corporation jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw Any opinions expressed above are mine.
Can we get the text of the actual speech? Unless Netscape officially issues a statement on their home page, and as a press release, saying that the press coverage was wrong and Netscape is *against* any and all forms of GAK, then I think we should assume that Netscape official position is in favor of GAK, and speak out about it as such. It is very damn close to the wire. Even though the speech may have been misreported, it is the reporting that affects public opinion. Even if Netscape has no current products or plans to release products implementing GAK, in light of this press coverage, unless they issue a statement saying they are against GAK, then they are for GAK. I haven't given up on Netscape, yet-- I'm waiting for an official word. Jeff: If Netscape comes out in favor of GAK, will you leave? (Wait until February, at least, of course..) You don't have to answer that to me, or the list, just think about it, and answer it for yourself. Do you think "anyone else" there would leave, as you say below that they don't want to go down history, etc... > > sameer wrote: > > > > http://www.cnet.com/Central/News/govt.html > > > > Bad. Very Bad. And I was almost starting to like Netscape. > > Please don't give up on us yet. All press accounts I've read so far > have lots of stuff attributed to Jim, but very little of it is actual > quotes. There appears to be lots of paraphrasing and interpretation > being done on the part of the reporters. The impression that I'm > getting is that the press has blown a couple of small sound bites > way out of proportion. The infoworld article that covers the same > speech only devotes about 20% of the article to the key escrow topic, > and is similarly devoid of actual quotes. > > I have not spoken to Jim about this, and I did not hear the talk > myself, so I'm mostly reading between the lines here. After I saw the > story earlier today I started asking around to see if the company > had made any major policy shift in the direction of GAK, and wasn't > able to turn up anything. If anything its the opposite. > > My feelings about key escrow, which were echo'd by several folks > in management when I spoke to them today are: > > o Government mandated escrow would be a bad thing > o There are some settings where escrow is good, in the corporate > setting, or as a matter of person choice(to protect against > loss of password) > o The whole issue of escrow should be de-coupled from the > export issue > > I don't want to go down in history as a facilitator of the totalitarian > state, and I don't think anyone else here does either. I hope folks > wait for press releases, product announcements, etc. before condemning us > too much. Jim has made comments in the past that were quoted out of > context, and blown way out of proportion to the point that some people > believed that we were monitoring our user's every keystroke and sending > it all back to the home office to generate huge demographic databases. > I suspect that this is the same sort of thing, and I hope everyone will > judge us by what we do. > > --Jeff > > PS - you won't find a LEF in the soon to be released SSL Version 3 spec... > > -- > Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist > Netscape Communication Corporation > jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw > Any opinions expressed above are mine. > -- 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 Thu, 30 Nov 1995, sameer wrote: > Jeff: If Netscape comes out in favor of GAK, will you leave? > (Wait until February, at least, of course..) You don't have to answer > that to me, or the list, just think about it, and answer it for > yourself. Do you think "anyone else" there would leave, as you say > below that they don't want to go down history, etc... > While this would go over well in the press if handled right please let everyone remember that Jeff is a real person with bills to pay and food to put on at least his own table. Now if someone out there with their own business is willing to match his politics with his purse and offer Jeff a job at the same level if he *decides* to leave in the midst of GAK flak... > > -- > 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 > Matt
Matt Miszewski <crypto@midex.com> said: MM> On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, sameer wrote: s> Jeff: If Netscape comes out in favor of GAK, will you leave? (Wait s> until February, at least, of course..) You don't have to answer that s> to me, or the list, just think about it, and answer it for yourself. s> Do you think "anyone else" there would leave, as you say below that s> they don't want to go down history, etc... MM> While this would go over well in the press if handled right please MM> let everyone remember that Jeff is a real person with bills to pay MM> and food to put on at least his own table. I believe that was the point: How many people at Netscape would put principled opposition to GAK ahead of expediency? My guess? Not enough. -- #include <disclaimer.h> /* Sten Drescher */ To get my PGP public key, send me email with your public key and Subject: PGP key exchange Key fingerprint = 90 5F 1D FD A6 7C 84 5E A9 D3 90 16 B2 44 C4 F3
On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Sten Drescher wrote: > Matt Miszewski <crypto@midex.com> said: > > MM> On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, sameer wrote: > > s> Jeff: If Netscape comes out in favor of GAK, will you leave? (Wait > s> until February, at least, of course..) You don't have to answer that > s> to me, or the list, just think about it, and answer it for yourself. > s> Do you think "anyone else" there would leave, as you say below that > s> they don't want to go down history, etc... > > MM> While this would go over well in the press if handled right please > MM> let everyone remember that Jeff is a real person with bills to pay > MM> and food to put on at least his own table. > > I believe that was the point: How many people at Netscape would > put principled opposition to GAK ahead of expediency? My guess? Not > enough. > And more importantly, what exactly is the GAK issue worth to netscape types? Don't spout that trash about not being able to put food on the table. Salary cut, maybe, temporary job search, maybe, but poverty? I hardly think so. So, for a 15% reduction in salary and 30 days of job search, is it worth it? Answer for yourself. That's where you really stand. > -- > #include <disclaimer.h> /* Sten Drescher */ > To get my PGP public key, send me email with your public key and > Subject: PGP key exchange > Key fingerprint = 90 5F 1D FD A6 7C 84 5E A9 D3 90 16 B2 44 C4 F3 > --- "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
> > 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.) -- 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 Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Sten Drescher wrote: > Matt Miszewski <crypto@midex.com> said: > > MM> On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, sameer wrote: > > s> Jeff: If Netscape comes out in favor of GAK, will you leave? (Wait > s> until February, at least, of course..) You don't have to answer that > s> to me, or the list, just think about it, and answer it for yourself. > s> Do you think "anyone else" there would leave, as you say below that > s> they don't want to go down history, etc... > > MM> While this would go over well in the press if handled right please > MM> let everyone remember that Jeff is a real person with bills to pay > MM> and food to put on at least his own table. > > I believe that was the point: How many people at Netscape would > put principled opposition to GAK ahead of expediency? My guess? Not > enough. I feel slighted. No one accused me of lacking principles because I haven't quit my job with the Justice Department based on its, and the Administration's, position. Then again, maybe you just realize that the market for lawyers, and the market for people who can actually do something worthwhile, is very different. Nevertheless, I won't think less of Jeff if he doesn't quit. He appears to be fighting what most here believe is the good fight. Refusing to take his ball and go home does not mean, to me, that he lacks principles. Perhaps it means that he thinks he can do more from within. Gee, and Tim May didn't get a new ISP when his current PC-ISP canceled his Usenet access because of his protected speech and then gave it back only if he included a disclaimer on his messages. Fire away, Cypherpunks!!! EBD
Jeff Weinstein writes: > sameer wrote: > > > > http://www.cnet.com/Central/News/govt.html > > > > Bad. Very Bad. And I was almost starting to like Netscape. > > Please don't give up on us yet. All press accounts I've read so far > have lots of stuff attributed to Jim, but very little of it is actual > quotes. Jeff, I'll be blunt. I'm never going to use Netscape again if it turns out to be true. Sure Mosaic bites, but who cares -- with enough work we can make it or something else compete with your product if need be, and I bet that you guys can't keep up with five hundred angry hackers. I'll also happily run a campaign to convince everyone else on the internet that you guys are helping to violate their privacy, because you would be. Tell Jim Clark that if he goes through with it he has something far worse to lose than his friends in the government -- the billion he just got his hands on. Tell him that if he is being misquoted he'd better make sure that retractions get printed and fast. If you don't want "Netscape Inside" to be treated as a warning label, you guys will reject escrow as any other ethical company would -- or else. Perry
On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > Jeff Weinstein writes: > > sameer wrote: > > > > > > http://www.cnet.com/Central/News/govt.html > > > > > > Bad. Very Bad. And I was almost starting to like Netscape. > > Jeff, I'll be blunt. > > I'm never going to use Netscape again if it turns out to be true. Sure --snip-- > Tell him that if he is being misquoted he'd better make sure that > retractions get printed and fast. --snip-- > If you don't want "Netscape Inside" to be treated as a warning label, > you guys will reject escrow as any other ethical company would -- or > else. > > Perry > Perfectly put, Perry. I have my store-bought copy of Netscape all neatly wrapped and ready to send back to them, pending only their timely response. If I do not hear them denounce GAK, then away it goes. Chuck