From: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 94 20:28:58 PDT
To: tcmay@netcom.com
Subject: RE: Big Brother's Escrow Systems
Message-ID: <9408010329.AA20402@netmail2.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: Timothy C. May

If Microsoft or any other companies have already colluded with the
national security establishments of the U.S. or other countries to
limit strong crypto except where software key escrow is used, then
attacks on these companies are justified.
..........................................................................

My turn:   oh, ppulllleeeeeze!   :>)
(this is a rather popular expression, lately).

This is why I don't think that scenario is possible:

Billg's favorite magazine is The Economist, he's inundated with 
free-market ideology; he's been willing to put up with all kinds of 
"guidance" from the world's regulatory agencies in order to bring the 
tools of software to places like China, where they could certainly use 
the industry for economic development and a few tools for 
communication.   Not that he is the only one doing this, not that he 
isn't profiting by it.  I myself would not be willing to tolerate the 
kinds of controls that software & other companies have to suffer in 
order to bring their products to these markets.  But I can grant that 
it does the customers a benefit for these to have been made available 
to them, even if I know that I myself am revolted to consider the 
regulatory tests which must be passed in order to do this (something 
akin to airport drug check examinations).  Maybe he's trying to save 
the world, I don't know.

Would they have been on the list of those opposing Clipper and the 
export of crypto?  I can't see where the company would contribute to 
the opposition on the one hand and then turn around and collaborate to 
put limits on strong crypto except as allowed by the government.  It's 
a contradiction; I can't imagine that MS would go in that direction of 
accepting such an unsavory idea.

It's absurd to think that MS would wish to offer its software and 
services to people all over the world, making it easier for them to get 
their work done and contribute to opportunities for developers therein 
to make an income, thus "empowering" them - freeing them to some 
extent, while on the other hand helping to put them under unwanted & 
unmanageable surveillance, thus putting them back into another 
miserable situation outside their control.

The culture here is so unlike that concept, so unreserved, that this is 
why I find it difficult to accept that the interests of the 
individual's desire for control over their privacy would be set up for 
compromise - be made difficult to maintain  -  by secret agreements 
between the company's leadership & the MotherShip.

I will belive it when I see it.   And I'll sign it:
	How could I have doubted;
	Timothy C. May was right all along.
	I should have known better.

Blanc
[Gratituous Disclaimer:   There isn't any way my employer could get me 
to say this.]