From: amp <Alan.Pugh@internetMCI.COM>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 22:12:19 +0800
To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Netscape announces position against GAK
Message-ID: <01HYSHEGJFMA94GEQ2@MAIL-CLUSTER.PCY.MCI.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-- [ From: amp * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

TM> I for one am satisfied--and even pleased--with the Netscape
TM> position on GAK.

TM> It remains to be seen how steadfast Netscape, as the major player in
TM> the Web browser business, remains in the face of (likely) pressure
TM> from the government.

i'm not entirely satisfied with netscape's response, but then, i
didn't expect to be. i _expect_ weasling from corporations that have
made the 'big time'. this is the way life is i suppose. what i'd like
to see would be more companies that have an interest in the security
of net-based transations in their best interest, (which would be any
company that intends to do any business on the net) come out
_forcefully_ for strong crypto. the ability of hackers to penetrate
the computers of the net would be greatly curtailed by universal
crypto. is there not a strong national interest in the integrity of
the net in general and financial interactions in particular? looking
forward, which politicians and bureaucrats are loathe to do, commerce
and corporate dealings across the net will only increase. what we
need to do is get large corporations to recognise that privacy is
important to _them_. of course, many already know that privacy is
important to them. why else would we have a body of law concerning
"trade secrets"? i work for a fairly large corporation. this makes
finding who to talk to about this difficult. i'm working on it
though. 

perhaps some of you out there can consider ways to convince those in
positions of authority in your company to realize that crypto
technology works toward their own best interest. they _must_ speak to
this because it is business that runs this world of ours.

TM> It seems to me that we have have been quick to criticize
TM> Netscape--which is good, the quickness part--and thus we should be
TM> equally quick to praise them. To be sure, various of us might've
TM> written the Netscape position statement slightly differently, but
TM> this does not change the basic point:  that Netscape has come out
TM> against the Administration's position on GAK.

TM> For this they deserve our praise.

indeed. netscape deserves praise for including 128-bit encryption in
their products in the first place. while i'd like to see them stand
up and tell big brother to fuck off and die, i am appreciative of
what they've done so far. i'd like to see a representative of
netscape on nightline or the noghtly news hold up a floppy and say
"this floppy contains an encryption program that the u.s. government
will not let us export. it was downloaded from the internet for free
by an executive of a multinational corporation based in germany who
wanted to know why i couldn't sell him a program that was as
cryptologically secure as it is. my answer was that the u.s.
government will not let me."

similar demonstrations of the lunacy of itar are left to your
imagination.

============================
these views are my own. no 
one else in their right mind
would hold them.

amp
<0003701548@mcimail.com> (since 10/31/88)
<alan.pugh@internetmci.com>
Current PGP Key = 57957C9D
December 13, 1995   18:51

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMM9nH4dTfgZXlXydAQGeKgf/XV2sAD7aklD+QfmcSUWReaH5jviADbMV
/wIv6JW4iSOytOa36K5VEXCuep6AUQTIiEflZ4OPU4IXAOKkF3UAxJWoSFY/zT9w
Kgb16I7tjDHohbc3tFikZ3z1Do3vLScxG7ll3CQOfTIr2KIxyN2/XOYkP1fsdvHr
TyBAO4S/ERq1v3BKZJQ1+LskBvPhjtivWs3xU+TBxT9Fc8Op6GmvFyRgjmwMoRfQ
orloUJuLbWWolnFvJMqyAK6pT5+QXZ3eH9ZguGmaLSHS8549Ts+LCirnBxI3HqZ4
sfD9jNRb3HiIG0gowXKU4lWTD4hiV+Se63NKfQYtj+qRfZ1wK+vd5A==
=6FyB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----