From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 16:22:24 PST
To: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
In-Reply-To: <199512042259.RAA08133@universe.digex.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951204191340.23041A-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Scott Brickner wrote:

> Black Unicorn writes:
> >I am most distressed because of what I see as a snowjob.
> >
> >"We are anti-GAK"
> >
> >Great, tell me what you have done to prevent GAK from proliferating.
> 
> This is a poor argument.

It would be if there were not some context here.  For example:

> 
> I'd consider myself "anti-war", though I've done nothing more than
> argue against it and behave peacefully myself.  I've even heard
> "pro-war" arguments and considered some of them valid, though not
> enough to change my opinion.

Yet I've not heard anyone else arguing, e.g., that you have done more to 
promote anti-war ideals than anyone else. (A case that was made for 
Netscape and crypto)  I have also not heard you assert that you are 
actively lobbying against war.  (As employees and others have argued 
Netscape is doing)  I have also not heard you flip flop on your 
position.  (Which in my view, and other's, Netscape has).  Were you in a 
position where you had a great deal of infulence over war policy, I think 
you would agree that others asking 'what exactly have you done to 
eliminate war' is not quite as alien to the context of your example.

In short, your example is argumentation by reduction.

> Netscape has pretty clearly said that they don't like the idea of GAK,

Their employees have also asserted that they are working actively to 
discourage GAK, that they are lobbying to get it (insert ambigious words 
here) and on every attempt to get some clairification I have seen 
hedging, assertions that quickly dissolved under the mildist prodding, 
and snowjobbing.

> and that in fora where such things are discussed, they'll argue against
> it.  They've also said that they won't let mandatory GAK put them out
> of business.  That *doesn't* make them pro-GAK.

It certainly doesn't make them active "anti-GAK" either.  Netscape needs 
to realize that the sword they carry is sharp.  If they choose not to use 
it, I want to know why.  Actually, even if I don't know why, I don't 
care, so long as they don't lie or decieve, throwing up thin veils to 
conceal their lack of organization, appreciation of their position, or 
simple laziness and lack of concern.

> Jim Clark hasn't made any statements to the effect that *Netscape*
> supports GAK (quite the contrary), but he *has* noted the government
> position --- "GAK is necessary for law enforcement".
> 

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information