1993-04-29 - No Compromise in Defense of Our Privacy Rights. PGP FIRST!

Header Data

From: Matthew J Miszewski <MJMISKI@macc.wisc.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: e997be41f1008647851e58e0b2f9b4dd2295ee8f3f4f91c81feca958fa35c4e9
Message ID: <23042918181047@vms2.macc.wisc.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-04-29 23:19:00 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 29 Apr 93 16:19:00 PDT

Raw message

From: Matthew J Miszewski <MJMISKI@macc.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 93 16:19:00 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: No Compromise in Defense of Our Privacy Rights. PGP FIRST!
Message-ID: <23042918181047@vms2.macc.wisc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

To all,
  Tim's statements bother me a great deal.  Granted I have not been around as
long as some (in this particular environment), but long enough to gain respect
for certain net personalities.  I wish to hold on to that respect...
  Ive heard a lot of people talk a lot of sh** about the privacy issues
concerning us requiring private acts of heroism.  Is that what is involved with
giving up on an ideal that has helped define the term cypherpunk.  Not long
ago Tim (and others) posted a rabid defense to the changing of the name of the
list.  Were those merely words?  I have never questioned the dedication of
freedom lovers like Tim before this series of postings.  Something has clearly
taken place.  I hope we find out what.
  My problems with Tim's suggestions:
1.  While those of us lucky enough (or skilled enough) to be independently
wealthy may think that the price of RSA software is nominal considering what is
at risk (I personally agree), do we forget about those that *need* this data
security and cannot pay for it?  (All of these people of course would use PGP
as an academic resource in order to make its distribution OK).
2.  From a legal point of view, what RSA is probably doing is asserting its
*presumed* patent rights.  Left unchallenged they will remain presumed.  So,
to those whom have repeatedly sounded the call for "individual acts of heroism",
is now the time to run and hide?  The *ultimate* question of the legitimacy of
algorithmic patents funded with public money *will* default if left
unchallenged.  So I challenge, with all of my honest respect, those with the
means to take up the gauntlet thrown down by RSA.
3.  There are more ways than one to legitimize strong crypto and allow RSA
to gain its almighty buck.  Suggestions have already been made.  Allow the
rights to the RSA patents to be purchased.  RSA does have a choice between that
and no money at all.
4.  What about those that went before.  Is the heroism of Phil Zimmerman to go
for nought?  The chances that several people, including Tim, have taken deserve
compensation NOT compromise.  RSA wants us to fold now.  Why is a respected
leader of the community asking a compromise of the Cypherpunk Manifesto?
5.  Finally, there have been other ways suggested to deal with the problems.
A USA-Legal PGP is one.  I know that many of the philosophers, code writers,
hackers, thinkers, etc. among us can overcome this too.  Why give up when it
appears to be the night before the big game?
  I am merely a law student with a deep interest in liberty and privacy.  I
*am* willing to offer my time to the preparation of any eventual *challenge*
of the RSA patents.  NONE of the above post was meant as a personal afront to
anyone, but rather a critical look at Tims suggestions (Mainly because I would
not have expected it from *Tim*).  If there are extenuating circumstances
involved, let us know.  I have been reading posts from Tim since the days of
p/hun and before.  I in NO WAY question Tims committment, but rather the
motivation for the out of character post.
  Any individual heroes left?