Jonathan Zamick wrote: | > Brian Davis wrote: | >I they tell you about it and you buy it anyway -- tough luck. | > | > | >Same with the cars. Would *you* buy Pinto with explosives in it???? | >(leaving aside the "inherently dangerous" argument for the moment on the | >products liability claim). | > | >EBD | | Hmm. The key point is that almost no general users will have a clue what | actual security is, and what GAK is. They _might_ understand the risks of | having an explosive in their vehicle (but can just as easily argue it wasn't | properly designed if it went off improperly.) Regardless of what they'd know | about their vehicle, they can easily claim to had the risks associated with | GAK improperly represented, Netscape misleading them with deceptive claims | of security given this potential hole etc. I'd just like to add one bit to what Jonathan said here. That is the AT&T Clipper phones don't come with 'Big Brother Inside' stickers on them. The phrase 'key escrow' is not used in the manual (near as I remember.) The disclaimer is in very small print. Its not a reasonable expectation that a product being touted as 'secure' is known to its makers to be insecure. Expecting John Q. Public to know that without warning labels seems like a strech. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume