Re: PGP, Inc.--What were they thinking?

Declan, perhaps the Big Brother vs. The Boss debate has been talked about
for years in the crypto community but, as far as I can tell, it hasn't
crossed over into the mainstream mediasphere. And that's partly due to the
rhetoric of cyberlibertarians, who have consistently pointed their finger
(justifiably most of the time) at the evil government, at the expense of
seriously analyzing surveillance in the private sector. For example, how
many people know what their company's security policy is? Do they read your
email? How often and with what cause?

I think any type of surveillance system is cause for concern--whether it
originates from the government or IBM. Lastly, I think you overestimate the
amount of wiggle room folks have in the labor market, which is never
perfect. What happens when most of the Fortune 500 starts eavesdropping on
company email? (Incidentally, I think that most working people--unlike the
digerati--are not in a position to launch their own company.) It reminds me
of the drug testing issue. Sure, it sucks and may even be unconstitutional,
but that hasn't stopped a lot of companies from doing it.

-Spencer

(posting this from my the computer in my corporate cubicle)





At 15:08 -0700 10/22/97, spencer_ante@webmagazine.com wrote:
>But with this new product, I agree that they run the risk of alienating
>their core user group of cypherpunks and hackers. Encryption is a very
>complicated topic that doesn't lend itself well to sloganeering and
>histrionics. And one major thing that needs to be pointed out: PGP's key
>recovery system is *voluntary and private*--not mandatory and gov.
>controlled, which is what the Feds and Louis Freeh have been pushing for.
>One potential positive side effect of PGP 5.5 is that it could realign the
>crypto debate and force people to consider this question: Whose back door
>should netizens be more worried about: Big Brother or The Boss?
Spencer, the folks on the cypherpunks list know better than perhaps anyone
else that encryption is a complicated topic.
I know it's tempting to search for New Things to Say about the crypto
debate. I try it myself sometimes. But the question you posed about "whose
backdoor should netizens be more worried about" has been debated for years
and is hardly new.
The short answer to it is: when Big Brother is my Boss, I have remedies. I
can leave the company or pressure it to change policies. I can file a union
grievance. If all else fails, I can leave the company and start my own.
This is not the case when Big Brother is Louis Freeh or Janet Reno. When
worldwide GAK is the rule, where else can I go?
Also: governments have guns; governments have jails. They have unique
coercive powers, which the law and western philosophical traditions
recognize -- and try to limit.
-Declan
(posting this before a soccer game somewhere in virginia)

At 04:05 PM 10/22/97 -0700, spencer_ante@webmagazine.com wrote:
>
>Declan, perhaps the Big Brother vs. The Boss debate has been talked about
>for years in the crypto community but, as far as I can tell, it hasn't
>crossed over into the mainstream mediasphere. And that's partly due to the
>rhetoric of cyberlibertarians, who have consistently pointed their finger
>(justifiably most of the time) at the evil government, at the expense of
>seriously analyzing surveillance in the private sector. For example, how
>many people know what their company's security policy is? Do they read your
>email? How often and with what cause?

My companies security policy is great -- I'm the only one who understands
the network. But it's a significant concern for most other people, I grant
you.

One of the main differences between corporate and private crypto is that,
fundementally, your boss owns your work PC -- he's given it to you so that
you can do your job, not play Doom, or exchange sexy email with the gals in
the secretary pool (do they still have those?). I think most workers are
more productive and more loyal when they are NOT being spied on, but that's
an issue of ethics and efficiency, not of rights.

But your home computer...that's a very different story. That one is YOURS,
bought by you for your purposes, and no one -- not Uncle Sam, not Mr.
Dithers -- has a right to go prodding around in it.

spencer_ante@webmagazine.com wrote:
> 
> I think any type of surveillance system is cause for concern--whether it
> originates from the government or IBM. Lastly, I think you overestimate the
> amount of wiggle room folks have in the labor market, which is never
> perfect. 

  I remember standing beside a farmer in Buttfuck, North Dakota, 
as we watched an antique roadster cruise by. He said, "They don't
make 'em like that, anymore.", to which I replied, "Yeah, and they
probably never did."

  I have nothing against the 'standard phrases' being dug out of the
back of the closet and thrown in the general direction of 'the usual 
suspects', every now and again, for the purposes of verifying that
this or that list member has done his or her Cpunx 'required reading.
{Ayn Rand, Snow Crash, Applied Cryptology, Tales from the Crypt...)
  However, I sometimes wonder if some of the 'freeh-market' advocates
on the list, after reading '1984', didn't say to themselves, "Gee, I
think Winston should have just moved somewhere else."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Your license, please?

  Debra Nutall of Memphis, Tenn. thought she was an American success
story
when she turned her hair-braiding skills into a business and got off
welfare two years ago.

  But now the Tennessee state cosmetology board is trying to close down
her
Memphis shop in a licensing dispute.

  "They call us bootleg braiders in the papers and it hurts," Nutall
told
reporter Paul Shepard of the Associated Press. "We pay our taxes and
make
this as professional as we can. Would they rather have me back on
welfare?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Allow me to point out that there is no longer anywhere 'to go' in
order to avoid Big Brother, Little Brother, Invisible Brother...
  You can move to Mars, but you're still responsible for paying US
taxes, so God help you if you ever come back (or if 'they' come and
get you).

> What happens when most of the Fortune 500 starts eavesdropping on
> company email? (Incidentally, I think that most working people--unlike the
> digerati--are not in a position to launch their own company.) It reminds me
> of the drug testing issue. Sure, it sucks and may even be unconstitutional,
> but that hasn't stopped a lot of companies from doing it.

  *Starts* eavesdropping? Where you been, Bubba?
  When a Company has the 'right' to wiretap you, search you, and make
you piss in a jar, as well as having their own armed forces monitoring
you and patrolling your workplace, the main difference between them
and the government is that the corporation usually doesn't pretend
to allow you to vote.
  Like the ads for the Pizza chain, 'Brother' doesn't come in the
'small'
size, anymore. We have Big Brother, Bigger Brother, and All That Can Eat
You Brother.

TruthMonger