From: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 93 14:13:29 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Tough Choices
Message-ID: <338R3B1w164w@ideath.goldenbear.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Timothy May writes:

> I suggest that we as a community seriously reconsider our basic support for
> PGP. Not because of any flaws in the program, but because of issues related
> to Clipper and the potential limits on crypto.
>
> [Cites several reasons why it's inconvenient that PGP users don't have
> legal licenses to use RSA's stuff]

With all due respect, fuck that. I agree that it would be much much better
if PGP users could be licensed; but your letter convinced me that it's
even more crucial that we get Bizdos, et al., to give or sell us a license
for PGP. Yes, it is important that we have a legal and above-board product
available to us. Walking away from a well-written and well-distributed
(and FREE, with source) piece of software to assuage the egos and wallets
of a few folks in California is bullshit.

If I need to choose between "legitimacy" and privacy, privacy wins.
Every time.

This is the carrot for Bizdos:  our money, and more market share.

This is the stick for Bizdos: some of use are gonna use it anyway.

He can have our money to use it - or not. RSA's choice.

This entire issue pisses me off - the work that created the "patentable"
stuff in the first place was supported by with public money. I think that
makes it ours. I'd be willing to play along with this game if it was
possible for me to do so in a reasonable fashion; but it is not. My money
went to fund the development of an algorithm that now I'm not allowed to
use? NOT!

> I'm arguing that we should look carefully and see what the real issues are,
> who the real enemy is, and then make plans accordingly.

The real enemy is people who tell us that some folks can own an algorithm
or a process; and other people who tell us that we can't use properties
of mathematics to ensure our own privacy.

It may be that within months or years the US Government will tell us that 
certain mathematical processes cannot be applied to streams of data, without 
criminal penalties; we are all able to see that's clearly unacceptable. Why 
is it so difficult to see that it's also unacceptable for PKP to tell us 
that we cannot apply those same processes without risking civil penalties?
The legal minutiae behind those two statements may differ; but the end 
result is the same. Other folks want to tell us what we can and can't do 
with our data and our computers. Fuck that.


--
Greg Broiles                            greg@goldenbear.com
Golden Bear Computer Consulting         +1 503 465 0325
Box 12005 Eugene OR 97440               BBS: +1 503 687 7764