From: djw@pdcorp.com (Dan Weinstein)
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 19:04:14 PST
To: jamesd@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
Subject: Re: Netscape speaks with a forked tongue:
In-Reply-To: <199512090118.RAA10458@blob.best.net>
Message-ID: <30c8fb21.576667@email.pdcorp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 08 Dec 1995 01:13:51 GMT James a Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>
wrote:

>Netscape speaks with a forked tongue:
>
>Jim Clark, top guy and owner of netscape, has issued a statement in
>support of government access to keys:
>
>
>    "To secure Net communications, the government
>      will need to have access to private data exchanges using
>      what is known as a key escrow security system
>     "
>
>and he has issued a statement that Jeff (a netscape employee) has very
>generously interpreted as anti GAK.  (Government access to keys)

You are quoting a reporter and attributing it to Jim Clark, do you
understand what is wrong with that?  You need to specify that this is
not his statement, but a report of the jist of his comments.

>The only clear and authoritative statement issued by Netscape on GAK
>is Jim Clark's speech in support of GAK. Everything else is a cloud of
>unintelligible fog, or was issued by people with no authority and
>given a minimum of publicity.

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.  As far as I know, Clark was not
speaking for Netscape when he was making the speach that you have
refered to.  Unless you believe that an employee of a company is
always speaking for the company when they speak in public or you have
some information I am unaware of, you are presuming that Clark's
opinions are thos of Netscape.

>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
oposition to GAK, but I think at worst he could be said to be resigned
to GAK, not a supporter of it.

>I offer my services free of charge.  :-)
>
>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.

>The only clear and authoritative statement issued by Netscape on GAK
>is Jim Clark's speech in support of GAK. Everything else is a cloud of
>unintelligible fog, or was issued by people with no authority and
>given a minimum of publicity.

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



Dan Weinstein
djw@pdcorp.com
http://www.earthlink.net/~danjw
PGP public key is available from my Home Page.
All opinions expressed above are mine.

"I understand by 'freedom of Spirit' something quite definite -
the unconditional will to say No, where it is dangerous to say
No.        
           Friedrich Nietzsche