-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <877686661.25414.193.133.230.33@unicorn.com>, on 10/24/97 at 02:51 AM, mark@unicorn.com said:
shamrock@cypherpunks.to wrote:
I have watched this silly debate for some time now. PGP pulled an awsome hack on corporate America, bringing strong crypto to thousands of corporate drones, while Cypherpunks, the crypto elite, seems incapable of reponding with anything other than to engage in frenzied mutual masturbation fueld by GAK fantasies.
This is sad. Very sad.
Lucky, did you actually read anything I wrote, or is this merely another knee-jerk response?
If you can explain the following, then I'll accept that my fears are merely fantasies:
1. How PGP can prevent CMR being converted into GMR; their system builds all the code required to support mandatory encryption to FBI and NSA keys into every copy of PGP.
No their system does not. For what the FBI and NSA want much more needs to be done. Not to mention that *ANY* crypto system can be turned into GAK if the FBI & NSA get congress to pass the laws that they want.
2. Why PGP prefer this option to almost identical systems which do not allow GMR. They don't even seem to be interested in discussing alternatives.
What PGP Inc. did was provide what their *customers* , you know the ones that pay their bills and keep them in business, wanted in a timely fashion with little modification to their current code while circumventing some of the more draconian requests.
These are the important questions we should be asking and noone on the pro-PGP side seems interested in answering them. Why?
They have been answered time and time again, you just have not been interested in listening.
Frankly, this issue seems to be the most important since Clipper, and I'm amazed that so many cypherpunks are so dazzled by PGP's name that they refuse to sit and think these issues through.
If this is such a life and death issue why don't you and some of the other Cypherpunks Philosopher Kings get off your armchair quarterbacking write, test, debug, and *market* your superior system?? Then we can all dance and sing the praises of CP Inc. and what a wonderful thing that they have done?? No? Perhaps because the majority of the "PGP Inc is evil" crowd here couldn't make a buck in the business world if their lives depended on it. I also find it interesting how there is "much weeping gnashing of teeth" over PGP 5.5 , which does nothing that couldn't be done with 2.6, while Netscape, RSA and the S/MIME crowd put weak crypto on every desktop?? Where is the Righteous Indignation?? Where are the cries to burn RSA and Netscape on the stake?? I think sticking the "unwashed masses" with 40bit RC2 a more serious and pressing issue than anything going on with PGP 5.5. Of course the Philosopher Kings are too busy in their PGP feeding frenzy to notice such thing. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNFCNV49Co1n+aLhhAQGtUgP+PejRkW8vx0xTN/QTBLnakHZW6aeuIyH8 Rpsw0yckaZbOyHJnGlXxSCxZrBNM1Aiu0SMdgMmu4X9VBTbZgkJwTJaEpik4jCPa 9nLMLl8OCQMWNtaVN7xJfjyY42TJSjxzXp+eGLPCtOhvcxnu0+CJEu7nZM9jId3j uxPkXfwtNrU= =7Le9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----