From: JR@ROCK.CNB.UAM.ES
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 07:21:26 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
Message-ID: <951204173237.20a03d03@ROCK.CNB.UAM.ES>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net> wrote
>On Fri, 1 Dec 1995 JR@ns.cnb.uam.es wrote:
>
>> From:	SMTP%"tcmay@got.net"  1-DEC-1995 12:26:55.99
>
...
>
>You need to think real hard about how likely foreign customers on a scale 
>as large as the U.S. government are going to be attracted to a product 
>that forfeits its keys to the U.S. government.  Consider this problem 
>again in light of all the hand waving about the U.S. intelligence 
>agencies and industrial espionage/intelligence.

	I do, and I reckon most people, at this level now, worry more
about how nice pages look than their security. Mostly because there is
comparatively little interest yet. That's the whole issue: a company that
is aware of that and wants to be the first at occupying the market will
give security a second priority level -as most users do-. Look e.g. at
any OS and how secure it is...

	I'm not defending Netscape, I argue about the reasons that drive
the market and most companies -Netscape among them-.

> 
>Let's put this example in a more personal context, with you as the 
>netscape guru.  In fact, let us carry that assumption along, as really 
>I'm talking to the netscape insiders to begin with.

	Please, not that I have no liaison to Netscape. But I don't like all
this broohaha about whether this or that guy is evil because s/he does/
doesn't hold with some principles/ends.

	If one wants to be effective, one needs to understand the other
side's point of view, so as to be able to develop coherent strategies that
work.

	Independently of what *my* personal convictions are -which I
have never stated-, you can't forget that not everybody holds to your
same ethics or needs to.

...
>
>Your faith in Joe Random vastly exceeds mine.

	So it seems. Anyway, that's the only resource we have. If Joe
Random doesn't care, then it doesn't matter too much what you or me
can say. Nor would it be correct that we imposed our view to the
majority of Joes.


...
>Your information cost is lower by a factor of 100 or more.  Putting the 
>burden on our shoulders, and then couching it in terms of the cypherpunks 
>being negative, when indeed we are merely pointing out to whoever will 
>listen that a spineless money decision has been made, is the center of 
>hyprocracy.  It sickens me.

	Again, I'm not Netscape. So, don't tell *me*. If it sickens you
the position of anyone, I'm sorry. It may sicken me too, but I don't
think that only will change how things are (sic).

...
>As does this psycho-babble trash.

	It may be trash. But it works. Sorry if you don't like it, but
that's how humans are.

>So when pinto's explode, I might as well just advertize hondas as a 
>'better value' and not mention the rather glaring fault in the competing 
>product?

	Well, that -as I said- may depend on where you are. In some
countries you could sue them, but you could not *say* they are bad.
Odd, isn't it? But so it is.

>I might add, few cypherpunks (to their great credit) sell their 
>software.  We are interested in the software being the strongest, and 
>best quality.
>
	So do I. And that's what I suggested: better alternatives. If
there are some, then market forces will drive everything to our side.
Just by making people angry we won't gain much.

..
>You mean to realize that Netscape could care less about the 'educated' 
>consumer who is displeased with the decision, and instead is following 
>that large nose which sniffs the waifting scent of green?

	Exactly. If you realize that, you know what the problem is. If
you assume any company has to be bounded by any cypherpunkish ideas,
which in addition hurt their business, then you are not addressing the
real problem.

...
>Either support GAK or do not.  Don't give us horseshit about how you 
>think we are being too hard on Netscape because we are educated 
>consumers, and because we realize that GAK crypto is not the best product it 
>could be.

	Sorry man, but as soon as Democracy comes in, elites go out the
window. It's the domain of the common man. If the common man doesn't hold
with the opinions of the educated man, then the educated man has nothing
to do.

>It is as much our right to gripe and moan about the spineless decision as 
>it is for you to make it.  To tell us to ignore it is hypocritical in the 
>extreme.  If your product is so superior, why the hell should you care 
>about a few cypherpunks moaning about this or that?  Aren't we members of 

	You can gripe or moan or do as you wish. So do I, and I chose to
express my opinion that educating the common man is more effective.

	And once more: it's not my product. I have nothing to do with 
Netscape. All I want is energies derived into effective courses.

>Take your emotional censorship elsewhere.  And while your at it, try 
>making a superior product to please us, rather than some high-school 
>textbook psycho-babble about saying only nice things to the other 
>children in the sandbox.

	I fear it is you who's becoming emotional and censoring. I didn't
tell anybody to take his/her opinions anywhere else. I'm only exposing what
my opinion is on how cryptography should be promoted and what is the
-in my humble opinion- best course of action.

	As for "children in the sandbox"... it also seems I have some more
respect for those "Joe Random"s than you do. And even if they are so, I
prefer to take them into adulthood rather than keeping crypto priesthood
to myself and pontificing them what they should do relying on me.

				jr