From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 03:50:09 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Why Netscape employees should not leave...
In-Reply-To: <ace5cd0216021004c8fd@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951202142227.1199D-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 8:33 AM 12/2/95, sameer wrote:
> >>
> >> So, for a 15% reduction in salary and 30 days of job search, is it worth it?
> >
> >        30 days? in silicon valley? you *must* be joking. (i suppose
> >the market for good net-folks isn't as big over on the right coast.)
> 
> Just a minor clarification. I don't speak for any of the Netscape employees
> here (nor am I encouraging them to leave...they cay do *more* within
> Netscape than merely be resigning in some sort of protest).

[...]

> I'm critical of Netscape, like others are, on various issues. But I sure do
> hope we never turn this criticism into suggestions that Jeff and the other
> Netscape folks here should quit in protest. That smacks too much of "you're
> working for the war machine!" stridency. (Next we'll be having people dump
> buckets of blood over piles of Netscape Navigator at Fry's.)

The point that should have come across was that it is hyprocracy for the 
Netscape employee to proport to be a strong crypto supporter of any great 
degree when the phrase 'the money is more important to me' could be applied.

I tend to agree that the resulting effect was instead a version of "if 
your not a part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

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.

I don't care if Netscape makes a pile of money as of now.  Until they 
show themselves as a company with backbone in the area I consider 
important, my investment dollar goes elsewhere.

> 
> 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."

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.  

The title "Software Munitions Expert" or similar such should probably be 
changed to "GAK marketing expert" however.

> --Tim May
> 
> Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government.
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> Corralitos, CA              | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Higher Power: 2^756839      | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
 

---
"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