From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:26:30 -0800 (PST)
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Subject: Re: LJL into key-escrow? (was Re: The Balloon is Going Up....criminalization of noncompliant crypto)
In-Reply-To: <19970401122309.44634@bywater.songbird.com>
Message-ID: <3342A4EF.5534@sk.sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 1997 at 12:03:27AM +0100, Adam Back wrote:
> > "Entrust" is a company Kent has been quoting to
> > us in a long running thread on cpunks, as an example of how companies
> > really want "key-escrow".
> 
> Just so things are clear, the reasoning is as follows:
>         1) Entrust provides a product that includes enterprise
>         key escrow.
>         2) <useless redundancy>
>         3) The point of my posting it was to illustrate
>         that industry perceives a market.
>         4) Entrust is a product I happen to be familiar with.  You go
>         to "security" trade shows and you see other companies as
>         well.

Kent, 
  You should try to refrain from embarassing yourself by referring
to the above as "reasoning".
  I'm of a like mind with Bill Stewart and Dr. Robert's, or whoever, 
who appear to think that compromises on privacy and freedom lead to 
yellow stars and barbed-wire fences.
  
 
  Now, if you could just give us similar examples to illustrate 
how the burdgeoning market for Zyklon-B showed that corporations
*really wanted* the Holocaust...
  Or how the Allied POW's in the Battan Death March *really wanted* 
to go for a walk in the country...
-- 
Toto
"The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre"
http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html