From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 06:49:17 +0800
To: spencer_ante@webmagazine.com
Subject: Re: PGP, Inc.--What were they thinking?
In-Reply-To: <88256538.00787D24.00@pcwhub.pcworld.com>
Message-ID: <v03007805b0742f682da4@[204.254.21.122]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 15:08 -0700 10/22/97, spencer_ante@webmagazine.com wrote:
>But with this new product, I agree that they run the risk of alienating
>their core user group of cypherpunks and hackers. Encryption is a very
>complicated topic that doesn't lend itself well to sloganeering and
>histrionics. And one major thing that needs to be pointed out: PGP's key
>recovery system is *voluntary and private*--not mandatory and gov.
>controlled, which is what the Feds and Louis Freeh have been pushing for.
>One potential positive side effect of PGP 5.5 is that it could realign the
>crypto debate and force people to consider this question: Whose back door
>should netizens be more worried about: Big Brother or The Boss?

Spencer, the folks on the cypherpunks list know better than perhaps anyone
else that encryption is a complicated topic.

I know it's tempting to search for New Things to Say about the crypto
debate. I try it myself sometimes. But the question you posed about "whose
backdoor should netizens be more worried about" has been debated for years
and is hardly new.

The short answer to it is: when Big Brother is my Boss, I have remedies. I
can leave the company or pressure it to change policies. I can file a union
grievance. If all else fails, I can leave the company and start my own.

This is not the case when Big Brother is Louis Freeh or Janet Reno. When
worldwide GAK is the rule, where else can I go?

Also: governments have guns; governments have jails. They have unique
coercive powers, which the law and western philosophical traditions
recognize -- and try to limit.

-Declan

(posting this before a soccer game somewhere in virginia)