Re: Note from PGP employee on MRK (sic)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Declan McCullagh wrote:

A friend of mine by the name of Jason Bobier happens to work at PGP, Inc. I'll preface his comments by pointing out that I'm sure he doesn't speak for the company in any way.

...

Unfortunately these people just don't get it. Corporations refused to buy 5.0 because it did not have any way for the corps to get at email encrypted to their employees. There are some very legitimate uses of this, such as when an employee dies and someone else has to take over for them.

Without corps buying the product, there is no PGP, Inc., and thus no dedication of resources to the production of PGP. This leads us back to the floundering state of development that PGP was in before 5.0.

They also don't seem to realize that you always have the ability to remove the MRK (sic) from your list of recipients.

Sometimes I really feel like screaming at these people. _All_ of the developers at PGP are personal privacy zealots and no one likes the idea of the MRK (sic). That is why we refuse to make them required. It is also why there still are freeware and personal versions of the product. I wish they would just realize that we aren't some evil group of people that are solely plotting how to make the most money off of this. Most everyone at PGP has internalized personal privacy as a cause (actually most had it before they joined PGP).

*sigh* OK, enough ranting. Feel free to quote various parts of this if you feel like responding to the list.

I would hope that the employees of PGP, Inc. take a deep breath and seriously consider the many cogent and well thought out points its critics have made. We haven't seen much of this, unfortunately. (And those who are claiming that their critics are rude should recall how Dorothy Denning was treated.) It is the unfortunate reality that good people can join a good company which then later does bad things. This can occur due to moles and internal subversion, greed, or simply foolishness. I have seen repeated claims by PGP, Inc. employees that they are privacy zealots. I'm sure some of them really believe what they are saying. But, these points are irrelevant if the result is the wide dispersal of tools which can be effortlessly converted into a mandatory GAK system. A number of people have been arguing that it is necessary for the company to issue snoopware because they can make money doing it. How often have we rejected this argument when the company is AT&T, ITT, Standard Oil, United Fruit, or Microsoft? This rejection is proper, and it applies to PGP, Inc. like any other company. Another claim is that by making money selling snoopware, the proceeds may be taken and used for privacy software. Wouldn't it make more sense to earn money in some more palatable way and then plough the proceeds into a company which is writing privacy software? I'm sure most PGP, Inc. employees would reject the "We had to destroy the village to save it" line of thinking if it were found in any other context. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNE+ow5aWtjSmRH/5AQFsWAf+LWjZNCdR6jdAsffX4PR6KLhX8W+V4jkQ J6odSQNpStVkFhPtcByG+AWaPQLmKxlwVKcO44pQVhTIDhMUlFniSnYtQ/zq+6RF aeqNG7WLE/58g9Pgh78iBOfJ4wKLi/U5dzpdDX1Ua86B8uzcGKVGTerbN6QoFwH2 aOd2tytomYWmFQeMdguN43Ak9hP+ruA1dcqrlZjRPhEBhBJOfbYLSYt3GPDn6Cqq jTL/Ui3fu4KHcK8zGgVnXVwQNL0XubBhQmTZ54ohxywejt1A2Q4g4sh0oxvSCEDY giqk4uElp5an7K+N1tY+vExvkjdRkjsAQEtFAgp4fzHozbS5jNXBWA== =FFl7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----