| >Since PKP (and Bidzos, now president of RSA) always said that DH | >covered all public key encryption, it would seem that any RSA | >licensee would also need a license from Cylink. | | So, I suppose this invalidates the RSA agreement that allows PGP to | be distributed? What "fortunate" timing for the pro GAK folks! Okay, | everybody in US, erase your copies, before the Feral government comes | to get you....... Conspiracy flag on. Did anyone else but me see the discussion organized by Progress & Freedom Foundation at SPAN, I believe yesterday night. John Barlow from EFF was there, and he said a few things that certainly got my attention. He said that the "borders to cyberspace had to be protected", and that the "fight for freedom in cyberspace was fought right now, not in two years, but right now". And that we should "get encryption be deployed out there, either in Europe [i think he said] or embedded as a kind of holographic image in the Net". He also said that he "expected 'blood' to be shed in this fight" (everything taken from memory, not exact quotes) I was surprised at his intensity and outspokeness. I can't get this kind of statements into agreement with the negative picture several other cypherpunkers has painted of EFF. I wonder whether the effort by EFF to put some sensibel input into the official loop is failing, and that is behind his statements? (I haven't seen/heard him make statements earlier, maybe this is his usual way of expression?) Does anyone but me smell an attempt of rewinding part of the widespread use of PGP, because of a "patent problem". I got the GAO report on "requirements for the information highway", and they even included a PGP-encrypted email there. The report was rather positive to protect the privacy of the users, noting that it was a fine balance between many interests - not the "law enforcement only" point of view. Conspiracy flag off. /Christian