From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 20:00:06 +0800
To: Jeff Weinstein <jsw@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: Why Netscape employees should not leave...
In-Reply-To: <30C162DD.1E2F@netscape.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951203063154.24122F-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 3 Dec 1995, Jeff Weinstein wrote:

> Black Unicorn wrote:
> > I just get sick of those who tout themselves as Experts in Software
> > Munitions and are in fact are merely in it for the cash.  In it for the
> > cash is just fine.  Just don't tell me later you aren't.
> 
>   Can't I be a supporter of strong crypto, and also be in it for the money?
> Many people here make good money off of crypto related work.  If I'm asked
> to implement GAK in a situation where it is not mandated by law, I won't
> do it.

You can be a supporter of strong crypto, and be in it for the money.  I 
do not believe you can be a supporter of strong crypto and not fight GAK 
tooth and nail, which I just don't see you doing.  Sure, you will obey 
the law, but will you do anything to influence it's development.

All insult and prodding aside, really ask yourself this.

You've been GIFTED with a position of immense political power and a 
strong and virbrant voice.  Why aren't you using it?  I know the answer 
because I've talked to the attornies.  Do YOU know it?

> > > I read the Jim Clark statement that Jeff forwarded. It seemed noncomittal
> > > on the actual issue of whether Netscape will build a U.S.-supported GAK (as
> > > opposed to offering GAK for the Iraqis or French). I await with interest
> > > the clarification of the anti-GAK stance that Jeff alluded to.
> > 
> > I believe you got it with:
> > 
> > "If the law requires GAK, then I believe that we will implement it rather
> > than just disable encryption."
> 
>   Tim was referring to the position statement against GAK that we will be
> releasing before the NIST meeting next week.

I think it's clear what you will say at NIST, and exactly what is has to 
do with Netscape's real position on the issue.

> 
> > Note that the phrase is entirely ambigious on whether this refers to the
> > law requiring GAK for export, or export AND domestic sales.  Netscape
> > will install GAK into whatever will increase its sales.  I understand
> > and respect this position in the context of a company which needs
> > badly to start raking in some profits.
> 
>   What I meant, and have said in other places, is that if it is legal to
> ship a product without GAK for use inside the US, or anywhere else,
> I believe we will do it, because that is what our customers want.

What you have ignored, and ignored in other places, is the fact the 
Netscape has a good deal of clout today.  If you were really for strong 
crypto, why aren't you using it, why isn't Netscape using it, to cripple 
GAK, and entirely doable endeavor, rather than just seeking some 
redundant 'clarification' of the current law, (which even it it's most 
mild intrepretation is below the threshold of acceptable to any strong 
crypto advocate)?

More to the point, why are you telling us what a strong crypto supporter 
you are instead of SHOWING us?

> > The title "Software Munitions Expert" or similar such should probably be
> > changed to "GAK marketing expert" however.
> 
>   I'm sorry my dig at the ITAR does not ammuse you.

I find it very amusing and clever.  I just don't think it's a title you 
deserve.

  Your suggested
> replacement would not be appropriate since I don't support GAK (I believe
> that it is one of the most evil things any government could do to its
> citizens),

So let's see some energy and action that supports that position.  Talk is 
cheap.

 and I'm not in marketing.

You missed your calling.  You've got Mr. Weinstein hanging on your every 
word.

> 	--Jeff
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist
> Netscape Communication Corporation
> jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw
> Any opinions expressed above are mine.
> 

---
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