RE: Do the Right Thing

["Pat Farrell" <pfarrell@netcom.com>]

TCMay writes to c'punks:

> Well, people discuss what they think is important. Those who don't think
> this topic is important are of course not compelled to participate in the
> debate.

True.
Although calling it a debate is being loose with terms. Rant is more
accurate.

> These two points are what many of us are concerned about. Some may argue
> "Wait until it's illegal, then protest," but I think the Cypherpunks list
> has shown a particular strength in spotting "early warning signals" well
> in advance of actual developments, thus enabling us to get our ducks in
> line and hit the ground running (to mix some metaphors).


Hey, I was a fan of Trial Balloon...
But lets react to reality, not net-rumours.

Nothing to date has indicated that domestic GAK will be manditory,
except, as I noted in the last post, DERD, Freeh, and Grevildinger [sp]

We are failing to get our message accross to the Joe Sixpack's
of the world. We are starting to get get some coverage in
the press (USA Today, NY Times, etc.) but this is a slow
education effort.

Preaching to the choir is pretty pointless.

>>It was quite clearly implied at the September meetings that the
>>  Government expected that vendors would do only one version, GAK'd.
>>  This would allow the LEAs to tromple all over US civil liberties
>>  at will.
> This was my point about having a domestic and an export version.

Don't we agree on this? "tromping" on civil liberties sucks. That is
what I wrote last message.


> Pat, if the policies and technologies surrounding key escrow are not
> relevant to the themes of the Cypherpunks list, I surely don't know what
> is!

The policies and technologies are relevant. hacks to disable
Netscape because people are too lazy to see that they are
already doing multiple version, or that others provide
browsers, is noise. IMHO.

If we want to find about the policies, and given that there
is a huge, public meeting in two days, can't we wait to get some facts?




> People talk about what matters to them, for the most part, and attempts to
> "steer" the list to other topics are best done by example. That is, write
> up a really interesting article on some "relevant" topic and perhaps
> people will discuss it. That seems better than saying a discussion of GAK
> is not relevant.


I have not said any such thing. I have attemped to write up actual,
factual recordings of GAK at NIST.

What I am saying is that bitching about Netscape is a waste of list
bandwidth. If you think Netscape is full of fascists, use
another browser. Or, heaven forbid, write code.


> And the NIST/NSA meeting is coming up in a few days...what better time to
> discuss some issues, and thus possibly trigger some ideas or arguments for
> attendees to make, than now? What's the point of waiting until it's over,
> when all we can do then is complain?

What news is there on this topic? I am a privacy guy. GAK sucks.
So what is news?

Is it news that the Crypto-guys think GAK sucks? As TCMay has written,
check the archives. Lets not cover already covered ground.

Come on, lets either talk about news, action (Ian's, RJC's, Daimen's, ...
hacks) or what we can really do to be effective.

My point, which I clearly failed to make, was that Netscape
has to date, done a pretty good job. The quotes from Jim Clark
indicate that his is clueless. Fine, use another browser.


> I think key escrow, whether of the Clipper variety of the SKE variety, is
> central to the themes of the group.

Netscape bombs are not relevant to what I think is the
charter of Cypherpunks.

Pat

Pat Farrell    Grad Student      http://www.isse.gmu.edu/students/pfarrell
Info. Systems & Software Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
PGP key available on homepage               #include <standard.disclaimer>