Mike McNally wrote:

Jamie Lawrence writes:

...

Grove, on the other hand, has no place making statements like that, unless Intel has a political science wing I haven't heard of.

My recollections from a brief stint with Intel in the early 80's is that the company is quite conservative, and that Mr. Grove's personal outlook is largely responsible. Before I get torched, I hasten to point out that "conservative" does not of course necessarily imply "Clipper supporter"; there are certain statist philosophies that do so imply, however, and some of those can be lumped into the category "conservative".

I could be way wrong. Perhaps Mr. May could add more. It is distressing (though not surprising) to know that there are individuals in positions of power in cyberspace-related industries who hold opinions antithetical to "ours".

Caveats: I knew Grove moderately well when I was at Intel. I didn't see the CNN episode mentioned here. Yes, Grove is probably a conservative--he's at least a Republican (supported Bush). However, such terms are misleading. Clipper comes out of a "liberal" administration, not Reagan/Bush (though it no doubt started there...). Support or non-support for the crypto issue is complicated. Many of those being asked what they think have not given the issue much deep thought, and the phrasing of questions is key. What is more accurate to say is that the "power structure" in general is, as it usually is, worried by loss of its power and its ability to instill fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Whether it's claims of terrorism, child pornographers, or tax evaders, the national security state will push for any and all laws that preserve and enhance its power. I expect nothing from politicians, nor from corporate executives asked to comment on public policy. Would we expect them to endorse crypto anarchy? Tools that undermine their own corporate cultures? Doesn't mean they're "right," to the extent "right" and "wrong" has anything to do with things. (I've written extensively about this, and won't here.) As for Grove, he escaped from Hungary as a teenager, excelled in school (incl. CUNY, Berkeley), became the leading MOS researcher (making MOS stable was a very big deal in the mid-60s and enabled Intel to begin its course to the top of the heap in ICs). He's personally liberal in a lot of areas, fiscally conservative, and things like crypto are complicated issues. The debate is being presented--cf. the recent articles and comments by Denning, Parker, Gore, etc.--as an issue of keeping "fortress-like" crypto out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. This even while Clipper advocates cheerfully admit it won't cause criminals and such to use Clipper! Anyway, when the debate is couched this way, I'm not at all surprised that folks like Grove would adopt the party line. I never have thought we can win the hearts and minds of voteres. Too many of them have shown a demonstrated willingness to use the State to steal my property, to invade my home, to tell me I have to have some permission slip to do something, etc. I don't have time to elaborate on this point here, but what strong crypto allows is and end-run around democracy. And that's why many of us support strong crypto. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."