James A. Donald wrote:

...

I would like to hear Jim Clark say "GAK is bad".

At 11:05 PM 12/3/95 -0800, Jeff Weinstein wrote:

I do believe that the company, Netscape, will take such a position in the coming week.

I will be greatly relieved when this happens. I would be even more relieved if Netscape were to take action to make it more difficult for the government to introduce GAK.

Did he take a position against GAK?

He did both less than that and considerably more than that: Instead of trying to persuade us that he was against GAK, he sought to persuade the reader that the reader should be against GAK. He sought to make it difficult for both a future Microsoft and a future government to introduce GAK. He described GAK in accurate language, rather than euphemistic terms. He did not editorialize "GAK is bad" but any reasonable person reading his book, unfamiliar with crypto and the controversy, would conclude from the facts that he presented that GAK is a radical violation of the fourth amendment -- He described GAK in neutral, factually accurate language that doubtless deeply offended the folks at NSA.

I've been trying to use either GAK, or "mandatory key escrow" to refer to the hated beast.

"Mandatory key escrow" is still an oxymoronic euphemism. It is not escrow if the valuable item is held by someone who is party to the potential conflict, or subject to the power of someone who is party to the potential conflict. Even to those of us who know what the euphemism "mandatory key escrow" stands for, it still does not sound nearly as threatening and scary as "government access to keys". --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd@echeque.com