Thanks for the cites of Gatti. Greg's disclosure of C2Net's sales is appreciated. Perhaps not surprising. What would be surprising, maybe, would be disclosure as ZKS did in its earliest days, of reporting on meetings C2Net was having with law enforcement officials about its technology. Those admirably exceptionable ZKS reports then stopped, at least I didn't see them after the first few. What I got instead was a rush of advertising from ZKS. Fair enough, as far as business development goes. Those singular souls working at ZKS in the cpunk spirit, are what makes me especially interested in the firm's welfare, in the light of its original goal to make available to the public quite strong privacy protection and anonymity tools. A plan pretty close to the exciting, customer-appealing marketing method outlined by Greg. The ZKS original model did indeed have an anti-authoritarian streak. And presumbly the products live up to that promise. And that is all they do. If ZKS has only explained the technology to the LEAs and sold them the same products as the public gets, then great. And has not been persuaded to do a bit of dirty work as well out of sight of the cpunks. End of concern. Buy its products, invest in it, make the hard workers rich. Still, there is the PGP market model to ponder. And no believable disclosure from Phil why he left, what was done to PGP he could not bear to be a part of so took his settlement and skipped his obligation to his supporters to disclose fully. There is food for thought in why some people leave government service and companies rather than continue to participate in deceptive practices, though often still bound by secrecy agreements and NDAs. I believe that a good bit of the earliest public revelations of cryptology came from such people, as did and does most secret technology used for intrusion on private lives. Diffie hints at being nudged or noodled toward PK by thoughtful researchers. Today there are a host of ex-members of intel agencies telling and warning what they can without being jailed. One recurring theme of those who have worked inside the world of secrecy is how that world has been corrupted by excessive secrecy. And historians regularly write of the corrupting influence of secrecy in government. Undercover law enforcement agents are domestic spies, dreaded secret police in other nations, no matter what spin is put on the need for such operations to fight crime, and they pose a greater danger to civil liberties than the spooks and military from whom they have acquired techniques and technologies devised to combat foreign enemies. This is the crux of the homeland defense demonology, as in times past with other internal demons: government officials treating the citizenry as the enemy within and running secret operations as if intelligence and military operations -- indeed utilizing the resources of those powerful institutions by way of inter-agency agreements to avoid violating law. The Defense Science Board concluded in the Summer of 2000, in particular in its legal recommendations (a panel chaired by ex-NSA counsel Stewart Baker) that it was time to change law prohibiting domestic operations by intel and the military, that this change is needed to combat domestic terrorism and for "protecting the homeland." The DSB report in two parts: "Protecting the Homeland" http://cryptome.org/pth.htm "Defensive Information Operations" http://cryptome.org/dio/dio.htm Painfully ironic is that "protecting the homeland" is a siren sung by every government, left, right and center, which sees its citizenry as the enemy and argues the need for secret police, urges citizens informing on each other, runs secret courts, and generally stigmatizes anti-government conduct, yes, and speech. Anybody who continues to argue that AP was not used to convict Jim Bell, and that a crackdown on speech, not merely conduct, is not underway, lives in a bubble of ignorance or privilege. Or, more likely, is peddling deception as successful businesses ever must do after reaching maturity and youthful promises peter out.