From: jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu (Jonathan Rochkind)
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 94 13:26:30 PST
To: Nathaniel Borenstein <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: properties of FV
Message-ID: <ab190715020210043a68@[132.162.201.201]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 3:55 PM 12/17/94, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
[...]
>Well, mostly because we're leading for commerce, and we can't lead for
>everything.  Trying to do too many things at once often causes you not
>to succed at any of them.  We do, however, put our money where our mouth
>is when we say that we believe in the importance of universal access to
>cryptography -- that's why, even as a startup, we are a significant
>sponsor of Phil Zimmerman's ongoing work.  (We paid for the development
>of a PGP-encrypted telnet, which will be publicly available soon if it
>isn't already, and we send monthly checks in support of work related to
>the development of PGP 3.0.)
[...]
>So if we've been unclear, let me try once more to be crystal clear:
>
>1.  Cryptography is a Good Thing.
>
>2.  Universal access to cryptography is critical to the future of human
>freedom.

Hmm. Does everyone that previously flamed the hell out of First Virtual
feel kind of stupid now?
Dont' get me wrong, I don't have anything wrong with discussing the
limitations of First Virtuals protocols or software on the list, that's
what the list is for.  But it seems kind of counter productive to be
viciously flaming people like First Virtual and Mosaic, especially when
both have said that they remain committed to cryptography. Heck, if they
hadn't said this, it would probably be even more important not to flame
them, cause we'd want to convince them to change they're minds. And being
rude rarely convinced anyone of anything.

I'm just issuing a plea that people try to be a bit less rude on the list
in the future, especially with Real Live Commercial Developers. Not that
commercial developers are better then the rest of us, but I'm sure we all
agree that it would be really nice if commercial software supported strong
crypto, and it's really important to get commercial developers to do so.
If some of them are listening in on the list, it seems a good opportunity
to try to rationally and reasonably explain why crypto is good (if not
neccesary, as FV claims), and what sorts of crypto are strong enough and
well suited for their applications.  Without calling them names.