Re: PGP is Product of the Week

[jkreznar@ininx.com (John E. Kreznar)]

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

> Now that PGP is "legal" in the 
> US, and people outside the U.S. have the product spec no-one gets left out 
> in the cold.

It's interesting that you put it exactly like that.  It happens that I
have been grappling, so far unsuccessfully, with the fact that there is
a group of people who _are_ ``left out in the cold''.  I would value
your comments on this.

A person in the group to which I refer is ``in the US'' by the commonly
understood geographical definition of that phrase, but has as a matter
of conscience renounced any citizenship he may have had.  He refuses on
principle to affirm that he is a national person, and therefore cannot
use PGP 2.6 because such affirmation is supposed to be required in order
to obtain PGP 2.6, and may therefore be implicit in each use of PGP 2.6.
On the other hand, if he uses PGP 2.6ui, he risks being accused of
violating RSADSI's patent rights, because they will take him to be ``in
the US'', even though he has disaffiliated himself.

What version of PGP can such a person use?

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLgotOcDhz44ugybJAQFK5QQAr9nSs15ffo49jXFarfi8kSIQXPH16+1V
hGgMre0LktEG4M2hVO8K2VmoFiy982yM9W8jQmH2e6twrTGqiOmEKEyNcOFKwsWA
Ew45bEWcBcZpE/Ql+LBHk0PJNHoMGo/ORf4iec5ySYVo89XDahm+a6NMcGbBchHA
/3IdqOddt/c=
=8ITr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----