cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-07-18 - Re: Censorware Summit Take II, from The Netly News

Header Data

From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
To: “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@amaranth.com>
Message Hash: 2c54cb9b7684743688b55e30d2434dddc2f69dca41a3473ae3b582d1a232ca0a
Message ID: <3.0.2.32.19970717200041.0072b488@netcom10.netcom.com>
Reply To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970717182623.19394a-100000@well.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-18 03:11:20 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:11:20 +0800

Raw message

From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:11:20 +0800
To: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>
Subject: Re: Censorware Summit Take II, from The Netly News
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970717182623.19394a-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970717200041.0072b488@netcom10.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 08:40 PM 7/17/97 -0400, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>I think that several of us need to get together with the authors of Lynx
>and produce a GNU secure webbrowser and take on these SOB's.

Nothing wrong with releasing a GNU browser, but you will find it difficult
to impossible to match the features of a modern browser such as
Communicator and MSIE. Some may be happy with Lynx. Myself and most
consumers will stick with Communicator and MSIE.

[...]
>The "Net" will not be safe as long as N$ is allowed to do whatever they
>please.

The Net would be considerably safer if Netscape and others would be allowed
to do as they please. Unfortunately, export laws are a reality and Netscape
and Microsoft do what they can to bring strong crypto to as many people as
possible without ending up in jail. My posts on this topic should not be
taken as bashing these software vendors for attempting to make their
products available to a larger number of customers. I certainly do not
question the integrity of people such as Tom Weinstein who have worked hard
to make the best of a shitty situation. A situation they did not create.
[That questionable honor goes to the USG].

I merely question the wisdom to rely on a solution that can be disabled at
any time, for any reason, or no reason at all, by a party outside your
company simply by revoking a single cert. One should not make one's fate
subject to the future whim of a third party.

Thanks,



--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
  PGP encrypted mail preferred.
  DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56.
  http://rc5.distributed.net/

Thread