Why Netscape employees should not leave...
At 8:33 AM 12/2/95, sameer wrote:
So, for a 15% reduction in salary and 30 days of job search, is it worth it?
30 days? in silicon valley? you *must* be joking. (i suppose the market for good net-folks isn't as big over on the right coast.)
Just a minor clarification. I don't speak for any of the Netscape employees here (nor am I encouraging them to leave...they cay do *more* within Netscape than merely be resigning in some sort of protest). The _salary_ figure is not the key issue. Stock options are. Their stock options were almost certainly priced before the big run-up in price these last few months, and most likely priced at the IPO price or even lower. It is quite likely that these stock options are worth far, far more than salary. True, other companies offer stock options, but their Netscape options are already "in the money" by a wide margin, which is an incredible incentive to stick around. I'm critical of Netscape, like others are, on various issues. But I sure do hope we never turn this criticism into suggestions that Jeff and the other Netscape folks here should quit in protest. That smacks too much of "you're working for the war machine!" stridency. (Next we'll be having people dump buckets of blood over piles of Netscape Navigator at Fry's.) I read the Jim Clark statement that Jeff forwarded. It seemed noncomittal on the actual issue of whether Netscape will build a U.S.-supported GAK (as opposed to offering GAK for the Iraqis or French). I await with interest the clarification of the anti-GAK stance that Jeff alluded to. --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Black Unicorn wrote:
I just get sick of those who tout themselves as Experts in Software Munitions and are in fact are merely in it for the cash. In it for the cash is just fine. Just don't tell me later you aren't.
Can't I be a supporter of strong crypto, and also be in it for the money? Many people here make good money off of crypto related work. If I'm asked to implement GAK in a situation where it is not mandated by law, I won't do it.
I read the Jim Clark statement that Jeff forwarded. It seemed noncomittal on the actual issue of whether Netscape will build a U.S.-supported GAK (as opposed to offering GAK for the Iraqis or French). I await with interest the clarification of the anti-GAK stance that Jeff alluded to.
I believe you got it with:
"If the law requires GAK, then I believe that we will implement it rather than just disable encryption."
Tim was referring to the position statement against GAK that we will be releasing before the NIST meeting next week.
Note that the phrase is entirely ambigious on whether this refers to the law requiring GAK for export, or export AND domestic sales. Netscape will install GAK into whatever will increase its sales. I understand and respect this position in the context of a company which needs badly to start raking in some profits.
What I meant, and have said in other places, is that if it is legal to ship a product without GAK for use inside the US, or anywhere else, I believe we will do it, because that is what our customers want.
The title "Software Munitions Expert" or similar such should probably be changed to "GAK marketing expert" however.
I'm sorry my dig at the ITAR does not ammuse you. Your suggested replacement would not be appropriate since I don't support GAK (I believe that it is one of the most evil things any government could do to its citizens), and I'm not in marketing. --Jeff -- Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist Netscape Communication Corporation jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw Any opinions expressed above are mine.
Can't I be a supporter of strong crypto, and also be in it for the money? Many people here make good money off of crypto related work. If I'm asked to implement GAK in a situation where it is not mandated by law, I won't do it.
Yes. You don't have to work at Netscape to make money doing crypto. Witness the various crypto-related startups who do not support key escrow. Comsec partners, electric communities, community connexion, etc. (Not that you can't be a supporter of strong crypto and work for netscape at the same time. The jury [in my mind] is still out on that one) -- sameer Voice: 510-601-9777 Community ConneXion FAX: 510-601-9734 The Internet Privacy Provider Dialin: 510-658-6376 http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest") sameer@c2.org
On Sun, 3 Dec 1995, Jeff Weinstein wrote:
Black Unicorn wrote:
I just get sick of those who tout themselves as Experts in Software Munitions and are in fact are merely in it for the cash. In it for the cash is just fine. Just don't tell me later you aren't.
Can't I be a supporter of strong crypto, and also be in it for the money? Many people here make good money off of crypto related work. If I'm asked to implement GAK in a situation where it is not mandated by law, I won't do it.
You can be a supporter of strong crypto, and be in it for the money. I do not believe you can be a supporter of strong crypto and not fight GAK tooth and nail, which I just don't see you doing. Sure, you will obey the law, but will you do anything to influence it's development. All insult and prodding aside, really ask yourself this. You've been GIFTED with a position of immense political power and a strong and virbrant voice. Why aren't you using it? I know the answer because I've talked to the attornies. Do YOU know it?
I read the Jim Clark statement that Jeff forwarded. It seemed noncomittal on the actual issue of whether Netscape will build a U.S.-supported GAK (as opposed to offering GAK for the Iraqis or French). I await with interest the clarification of the anti-GAK stance that Jeff alluded to.
I believe you got it with:
"If the law requires GAK, then I believe that we will implement it rather than just disable encryption."
Tim was referring to the position statement against GAK that we will be releasing before the NIST meeting next week.
I think it's clear what you will say at NIST, and exactly what is has to do with Netscape's real position on the issue.
Note that the phrase is entirely ambigious on whether this refers to the law requiring GAK for export, or export AND domestic sales. Netscape will install GAK into whatever will increase its sales. I understand and respect this position in the context of a company which needs badly to start raking in some profits.
What I meant, and have said in other places, is that if it is legal to ship a product without GAK for use inside the US, or anywhere else, I believe we will do it, because that is what our customers want.
What you have ignored, and ignored in other places, is the fact the Netscape has a good deal of clout today. If you were really for strong crypto, why aren't you using it, why isn't Netscape using it, to cripple GAK, and entirely doable endeavor, rather than just seeking some redundant 'clarification' of the current law, (which even it it's most mild intrepretation is below the threshold of acceptable to any strong crypto advocate)? More to the point, why are you telling us what a strong crypto supporter you are instead of SHOWING us?
The title "Software Munitions Expert" or similar such should probably be changed to "GAK marketing expert" however.
I'm sorry my dig at the ITAR does not ammuse you.
I find it very amusing and clever. I just don't think it's a title you deserve. Your suggested
replacement would not be appropriate since I don't support GAK (I believe that it is one of the most evil things any government could do to its citizens),
So let's see some energy and action that supports that position. Talk is cheap. and I'm not in marketing. You missed your calling. You've got Mr. Weinstein hanging on your every word.
--Jeff
-- Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist Netscape Communication Corporation jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw Any opinions expressed above are mine.
--- My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Timothy C. May wrote:
At 8:33 AM 12/2/95, sameer wrote:
So, for a 15% reduction in salary and 30 days of job search, is it worth it?
30 days? in silicon valley? you *must* be joking. (i suppose the market for good net-folks isn't as big over on the right coast.)
Just a minor clarification. I don't speak for any of the Netscape employees here (nor am I encouraging them to leave...they cay do *more* within Netscape than merely be resigning in some sort of protest).
[...]
I'm critical of Netscape, like others are, on various issues. But I sure do hope we never turn this criticism into suggestions that Jeff and the other Netscape folks here should quit in protest. That smacks too much of "you're working for the war machine!" stridency. (Next we'll be having people dump buckets of blood over piles of Netscape Navigator at Fry's.)
The point that should have come across was that it is hyprocracy for the Netscape employee to proport to be a strong crypto supporter of any great degree when the phrase 'the money is more important to me' could be applied. I tend to agree that the resulting effect was instead a version of "if your not a part of the solution, you're part of the problem." I just get sick of those who tout themselves as Experts in Software Munitions and are in fact are merely in it for the cash. In it for the cash is just fine. Just don't tell me later you aren't. I don't care if Netscape makes a pile of money as of now. Until they show themselves as a company with backbone in the area I consider important, my investment dollar goes elsewhere.
I read the Jim Clark statement that Jeff forwarded. It seemed noncomittal on the actual issue of whether Netscape will build a U.S.-supported GAK (as opposed to offering GAK for the Iraqis or French). I await with interest the clarification of the anti-GAK stance that Jeff alluded to.
I believe you got it with: "If the law requires GAK, then I believe that we will implement it rather than just disable encryption." Note that the phrase is entirely ambigious on whether this refers to the law requiring GAK for export, or export AND domestic sales. Netscape will install GAK into whatever will increase its sales. I understand and respect this position in the context of a company which needs badly to start raking in some profits. The title "Software Munitions Expert" or similar such should probably be changed to "GAK marketing expert" however.
--Tim May
Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
--- "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
participants (5)
-
Black Unicorn -
Black Unicorn -
Jeff Weinstein -
sameer -
tcmay＠got.net