No, the thing that worries me most is patent infringement. And the main company I worry about is RSA, one of the sponsors of this golden key effort. Note that RSA's logo is a key, and we see the RSA key at the bottom of our Netscape screens all the time. I don't remember if it's golden.
The logo they have at www.rsa.com is two modern-style keys (like we all have on our keychains) fit together at the teeth. The key on the "Golden Key Campaign" and on Netscape looks more like an old-style thing, a circle on the end of a long bar with two teeth at the end. I'd say the RSA logo (the one at their web site) looks nothing like the one on the envelope.
They fought against PGP for years until Phil trumped them by going over their heads to MIT.
Yes, but from the previous post, it sounds like PRZ supports this.
I hate to see that company rewarded when it is acting counter to the interests of people who need access to privacy tools.
Financially, RSA *does* have a hell of a lot to gain from relaxed export controls. OTOH, I would think that other companies would be able to sell RSA-patented encryption, just not to inside the USA (IANAL). Of course, that inside-the-USA factor is a very big one. IMNSHO, relaxed export controls would be much better than the status quo, even if R$A does have exclusive milking rights to that global cow. One company selling crypto, even with a monopoly, is better than no companies selling crypto. Besides, the patent on public-key crypto won't last forever. I think I'll put the golden key on my web pages, right alongside the blue ribbon. ===================================================================== | Steve Reid - SysAdmin & Pres, EDM Web (http://www.edmweb.com/) | | Email: steve@edmweb.com Home Page: http://www.edmweb.com/steve/ | | PGP Fingerprint: 11 C8 9D 1C D6 72 87 E6 8C 09 EC 52 44 3F 88 30 | | -- Disclaimer: JMHO, YMMV, IANAL. -- | ===================================================================:)