1995-11-28 - Re: The future will be easy to use

Header Data

From: Jonathan Zamick <JonathanZ@consensus.com>
To: perry@piermont.com
Message Hash: ba40713589994ca8e9d2c47b6eb58b5475b4dbf32e2d664c845cc00b1c3df92a
Message ID: <v02120d02ace0fcab0df8@[157.22.240.13]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-28 18:41:26 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 02:41:26 +0800

Raw message

From: Jonathan Zamick <JonathanZ@consensus.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 02:41:26 +0800
To: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: The future will be easy to use
Message-ID: <v02120d02ace0fcab0df8@[157.22.240.13]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 9:26 AM 11/28/95, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>Jonathan Zamick writes:
>> I can't agree. The model of a successful enterprise includes feedback from
>> different levels of participants.
>
>This isn't an enterprise. The government is not a participant except
>by their own desire to interfere.
>
>> Regardless, the government will be taking a role in encryption.
>
>What makes you say that? Besides, why would that be desirable on any
>level?
>
>The Government will try to set standards and we will ignore them until
>they try to force them on us by law, period.

This discussion was based on a group of people getting together to create
a new easy to use package for handling keys and such. The government is
going to try to take a dominant stance, and mandate elements of it. That
has to be assumed. Those elements we don't agree with will be ignored or
worked around (depending if its government opinion or government law.)
However, it is possible, even in an antagonistic relationship, to develop
positive feedback. I may be cracked, but I'd like to think that it would
be an advantage to find some area where the government and the Cypherpunk
members do agree, to minimize the conflict over the areas where we don't.

Still, this is getting past the original topic, and gets more into the
religious level of whether there can be any cooperation when the two
sides are Government and Good/Widespread Encryption. My stance is that
currently, no, but that doesn't preclude it in the future. Others don't
see it happening at all, or don't see it worth the investment to achieve.
That is perfectly valid.

---

Returning to the original topic though, do we want to get a smaller list
together to spec out some ideas for the project that was discussed? A
simple, transparent, tool which would allow people to use strong encryption
without having to think about it?

I don't have much time to contribute right now, but I can at least put
together the list, and some ideas.

Jonathan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
..Jonathan Zamick                    Consensus Development Corporation..
..<JonathanZ@consensus.com>                      1563 Solano Ave, #355..
..                                             Berkeley, CA 94707-2116..
..                                        o510/559-1500  f510/559-1505..
..Mosaic/WWW Home Page:                                               ..
..  Consensus Home Page       ..







Thread