At 06:05 PM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
This post is a courtesy to others who may have been expecting more.
It's not that we're expecting more...it's just that we're hoping for BETTER.
It's a one-time statement to this list, which I've just joined, of my current practice: Silence does not constitute assent. David
Well, that's where you're confused. Our positions are not morally equivalent. Despite trying to hide behind the smokescreen of calling the government's GAK position "voluntary," we all know that they are trying to misuse their influence to gently force us to use GAK, if by no other means that forcing the taxpayer to pay for the system as they have done already. The opponents of GAK, on the other hand, are not denying to anyone the right to implement a truly voluntary "key-escrow" system, or more likely many privately operating ones. However, such systems will be a service for the customer, not the government, and the key will almost certainly not be provided to the government on request, and in fact the key will likely be stored in an encrypted form that the government won't be able to use. Quite simply, we do not require your "assent." You should be trying to get OURS. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com