New subject: CDR: Re: The Market for Privacy

1 Nov 2000

      Tim wrote:
...
The real market for robust security and privacy tools is, as
always, elsewhere.
The _interesting_ market has always been for those who
are--demonstrably!--willing to pay big bucks to get on a plane to fly
to the Cayman Islands or Luxembourg to open an offshore account. For
those who are actively interested in untraceable VISA cards. For
those selling arms. For those trafficking in illegal thoughts.
In short, for crypto anarchy.
Not for fluff.
In my view (I suspect this may be in agreement with Tim's comments above,
though I naturally do not presume to speak for Tim) ZKS' inability to derive
meaningful revenue of the Freedom (TM) product can be explained quite
trivially: the product fails to meet market requirements. Those willing to
pay cash to protect their Internet activities demand real privacy. Not the
watered-down, Mickey Mouse "privacy" Freedom provided.

Freedom does not offer the user untracable IP. Hence those seeking
untracable IP didn't buy the product. Little surprise here. Freedom's
current fate was predicted in detail on this list the moment ZKS' deviated
from their initial anon IP promises.

It appears that ZKS is yet another company that fell prey to the DigiCash
"we know better than the market what the market wants" syndrome. What a
shame, really.

--Lucky Green 

  "Anytime you decrypt... its against the law".
   Jack Valenti, President, Motion Picture Association of America in
   a sworn deposition, 2000-06-06

CDR: RE: The Market for Privacy

Lucky Green

Adam Shostack

anonymous＠openpgp.net

petro

Declan McCullagh

petro

tags

participants (5)