From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@invweb.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 20:08:31 +0800
To: mark@unicorn.com
Subject: Re: PGP Employee on MKR
In-Reply-To: <877686661.25414.193.133.230.33@unicorn.com>
Message-ID: <199710241155.HAA05345@users.invweb.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <877686661.25414.193.133.230.33@unicorn.com>, on 10/24/97 
   at 02:51 AM, mark@unicorn.com said:

>shamrock@cypherpunks.to wrote:

>> I have watched this silly debate for some time now. PGP pulled an awsome
>> hack on corporate America, bringing strong crypto to thousands of
>> corporate drones,  while Cypherpunks, the crypto elite, seems incapable of  
>> reponding with anything other than to engage in frenzied mutual
>> masturbation fueld by GAK fantasies.
>> 
>> This is sad. Very sad.

>Lucky, did you actually read anything I wrote, or is this merely another
>knee-jerk response?

>If you can explain the following, then I'll accept that my fears are
>merely fantasies:

>1. How PGP can prevent CMR being converted into GMR; their system builds
>   all the code required to support mandatory encryption to FBI and NSA
>   keys into every copy of PGP.

No their system does not. For what the FBI and NSA want much more needs to
be done. Not to mention that *ANY* crypto system can be turned into GAK if
the FBI & NSA get congress to pass the laws that they want.

>2. Why PGP prefer this option to almost identical systems which do not
>   allow GMR. They don't even seem to be interested in discussing
>   alternatives.

What PGP Inc. did was provide what their *customers* , you know the ones
that pay their bills and keep them in business, wanted in a timely fashion
with little modification to their current code while circumventing some of
the more draconian requests.

>These are the important questions we should be asking and noone on the
>pro-PGP side seems interested in answering them. Why?

They have been answered time and time again, you just have not been
interested in listening.

>Frankly, this issue seems to be the most important since Clipper, and I'm
>amazed that so many cypherpunks are so dazzled by PGP's name that they
>refuse to sit and think these issues through. 

If this is such a life and death issue why don't you and some of the other
Cypherpunks Philosopher Kings get off your armchair quarterbacking write,
test, debug, and *market* your superior system?? Then we can all dance and
sing the praises of CP Inc. and what a wonderful thing that they have
done?? No? Perhaps because the majority of the "PGP Inc is evil" crowd
here couldn't make a buck in the business world if their lives depended on
it.

I also find it interesting how there is "much weeping gnashing of teeth"
over PGP 5.5 , which does nothing that couldn't be done with 2.6, while
Netscape, RSA and the S/MIME crowd put weak crypto on every desktop??
Where is the Righteous Indignation?? Where are the cries to burn RSA and
Netscape on the stake?? I think sticking the "unwashed masses" with 40bit
RC2 a more serious and pressing issue than anything going on with PGP 5.5.
Of course the Philosopher Kings are too busy in their PGP feeding frenzy
to notice such thing.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNFCNV49Co1n+aLhhAQGtUgP+PejRkW8vx0xTN/QTBLnakHZW6aeuIyH8
Rpsw0yckaZbOyHJnGlXxSCxZrBNM1Aiu0SMdgMmu4X9VBTbZgkJwTJaEpik4jCPa
9nLMLl8OCQMWNtaVN7xJfjyY42TJSjxzXp+eGLPCtOhvcxnu0+CJEu7nZM9jId3j
uxPkXfwtNrU=
=7Le9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----