Re: The future will be easy to use
At 11:06 AM 11/27/95, Raph Levien wrote: .. stuff..
The competition for which cryptographic protocol wins will be decided on the basis of usability. .. stuff.. If cypherpunks are to have any hope of getting their vision of strong crypto implemented and deployed, it has to be in the context of usable systems.
.. stuff..
There's no way around it. This kind of system will not make it in the big time. As I see it, any system that does must have the following properties:
* Some variant on the Web of Trust.
* Online key-servers for getting keys in real time.
* A clean mechanism for validating keys through alternate channels.
There are three possible outcomes: we build it, the NSA builds it, or Microsoft/Netscape builds it. This last outcome might not be so bad, but only in the first one can we rely on our principles being advanced.
This is a very important period. The technology is young enough that a window is open for a non-giant to produce a dominant product. On the other hand, it takes actual coordination of resources. I'm not sure that it is within the range of Cypherpunks to take advantage of this window. There is still no agreement whether the group can be said to have a single vision, nor whether people within it want to be bounded by another's view. If people really wish to take advantage of this and really push things, it means forming a group, made up of Cypherpunk members perhaps, but much smaller, and capable of working together. Also capable of handling not only the theory, but good solid code, GUI, PR, meetings, talking to the government, etc. It is an open window yes, but not a simple one. I'd love to see widespread use of secure encryption, however I don't think the potential exists within the Cypherpunk framework to reach it as 'Cypherpunks'. The question then is, whether Cypherpunks should change, or whether a smaller group will be formed. Jonathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ..Jonathan Zamick Consensus Development Corporation.. ..<JonathanZ@consensus.com> 1563 Solano Ave, #355.. .. Berkeley, CA 94707-2116.. .. o510/559-1500 f510/559-1505.. ..Mosaic/WWW Home Page: .. .. Consensus Home Page ..
On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Jonathan Zamick wrote:
This is a very important period. The technology is young enough that a window is open for a non-giant to produce a dominant product.
Full agreement.
On the other hand, it takes actual coordination of resources. I'm not sure that it is within the range of Cypherpunks to take advantage of this window. There is still no agreement whether the group can be said to have a single vision, nor whether people within it want to be bounded by another's view.
If people really wish to take advantage of this and really push things, it means forming a group, made up of Cypherpunk members perhaps, but much smaller, and capable of working together. Also capable of handling not only the theory, but good solid code, GUI, PR, meetings, talking to the government, etc.
Right.
It is an open window yes, but not a simple one. I'd love to see widespread use of secure encryption, however I don't think the potential exists within the Cypherpunk framework to reach it as 'Cypherpunks'. The question then is, whether Cypherpunks should change, or whether a smaller group will be formed.
I think that changing the focus of cypherpunks is intractable enough that forming a new group is the only feasible alternative. Right now, I don't have the time to try to form such a group, but I would be an enhusiastic participant if such a group was to be formed. Incidentally, I've had one bad experience with this type of thing (it was the PGP 3.0 development team), so I realize it's not easy. A couple of things I've learned from the experience: * Clear goals. * A leader, someone who would call the shots, and would also serve as the person you'd have to convince. * Open communications. Shrouding a project in secrecy is a good way to kill it. This is one potential advantage we have over the spooks. It _is_ doable. I know the skill is out there. Wei Dai, Eric Young, Peter Gutmann, and others have proved themselves quit capable of writing good solid code. Sameer Parekh has done an incredible job with PR. Phil Karn, Dan Bernstein, and some others (who I'm not sure want to be named) are talking to the government. GUI I'm less sure about, but I'd hope that some cpunks would come out of the woodwork. It is not a matter of ability, but of will. Raph
One more time for the security/cypher-impared (me at least). I suspect there are a fair number of lurkers here who code for a living and would be willing to contribute if someone/the_group can articulate a requirements statement and then push it to the design stage. I bring nothing cypher-wise. I would be willing to help walk the s/w-engineering dog and to write Motif/X/socket if the chosen platform is UN*X, however. So, from an engineering standpoint, what should the "future" look like? jps -- Jack P. Starrantino (215) 674-0200 (voice) SEMCOR, Inc. (215) 443-0474 (fax) 65 West Street Road jps@semcor.com Suite C-100 Warminster, PA 18974
Hello, On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Jack P. Starrantino wrote:
I suspect there are a fair number of lurkers here who code for a living and would be willing to contribute if someone/the_group can articulate a requirements statement and then push it to the design stage.
As soon as PGP 3.0 is released I am planning on incorporating PGP into Pine, and start putting it into more programs, to increase the usage of encryption things before they go out. I am planning on adding a chat ability to a browser, and hopefully that will be encrypted, as well. Take care and have fun. (from a lurker) ========================================================================== James Black (Comp Sci/Comp Eng sophomore) e-mail: black@eng.usf.edu http://www.eng.usf.edu/~black/index.html **************************************************************************
participants (4)
-
James Black -
Jonathan Zamick -
jps＠monad.semcor.com -
Raph Levien