From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 23:23:53 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Netscape speaks with a forked tongue:
Message-ID: <199512090724.XAA01834@blob.best.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 03:11 AM 12/9/95 GMT, Dan Weinstein wrote:
> You are quoting a reporter and attributing it to Jim Clark, do you
> understand what is wrong with that?

Jim Clark has had ample opportunity to clarify his statements.

He has not clarified his statements and he has not disowned 
the reported version of his comments, despite repeated
requests to do so.

Once again I request him to do so.

Once again I ask what he means, once again I complain that 
if that is not what he meant, he should now say something that 
is unambiguously different from what he was reported as saying.

>It has been reported by those that attended the Clipper II meeting on
>Monday(?) that the Netscape representative read an official statement
>very much in opposition to GAK. 

I have not seen this statement, and I have asked for it:  Once again
I ask for it.  In particular I ask that it be placed on their web if
it says what they say that it says.

> > Jim Clark's  supposedly anti GAK statement was incomprehensible to me.
> > Perhaps he needs a punchier ghostwriter:

> Clark's statement was certainly something less than clearly in
> opposition to GAK, but I think at worst he could be said to be resigned
> to GAK, not a supporter of it.

It was worse than that:  he said nothing at all, the "clarification" 
statement was a cloudy fog.

> > If Jim Clark wishes to persuade us that his heart is in the right
> > place, he should put something like the following somewhere on the
> > Netscape web pages:
> >
> >    "Our customers do not want government access to
> >     their cryptographic keys.  Mandatory government
> >     access to keys violates the rights of our
> >     customers.  Therefore we will not foist
> >     government access to keys on those customers
> >     who have freedom to communicate securely.
> >
> >     We will only build government access to keys
> >     into our products for those customers whose
> >     governments force them to provide such access.
> >    "
> >
> > If that really is Netscape's policy, then they should tell the world
> > that that really is Netscape's policy, thus instantly relieving the
> > fear, uncertainty, and doubt created by the unfortunate widespread
> > misinterpretation of Jim Clark's original statements.


> Jeff Weinstein has promised that when the representative from the
> conference returns to Mountain View, they will publish his statement
> on web.

Still waiting.

I am sure that by now Netscape knows what its policy is on government
access to keys:   I ask them to tell the world, and to tell the
world in such a way that they cannot retract their words without
some embarrassment.


> Again, you seem fixated on making Clark's opinions equivelent to the
> position of Netscape Communications Corp, this is not a reasonable
> assumption.

Clark is not a Netscape employee.

Clark owns a controlling interest in Netscape and is chairman of the board.
Netscape's policies are whatever he says they are, except in the highly 
unlikely event that he is opposed by both Jim Barksdale and Kleiner Perkins 
plus a substantial majority of the lesser shareholders.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              				|  
We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind	|  
of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the	|  
arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com