Re: Clipper III on the table
At 05:50 PM 10/3/96 -0400, Anonymous wrote:
Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com> wrote:
I predict, therefore, Netscape and RSA would NOT capitulate to this latest bitter carrot.
Huh? RSA has already gone over to the dark side. According to http://www.rsa.com/PRESSBOX/releases/keyrecov.htm: "The recently announced Key Recovery Alliance, of which RSA is a part,
..." I think we should refer to what they are pushing as the "Key Recovery Alliance Program". K.R.A.P. is a good description as to what we are going to get from them. --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano@teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano@teleport.com |
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Alan Olsen wrote:
I think we should refer to what they are pushing as the "Key Recovery Alliance Program". K.R.A.P. is a good description as to what we are going to get from them.
Ping. We have a winner! --Lucky
Alan Olsen wrote:
I think we should refer to what they are pushing as the "Key Recovery Alliance Program". K.R.A.P. is a good description as to what we are going to get from them.
Key recovery is a great thing, as long as it is not mandated by the government. - Igor.
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Alan Olsen wrote:
I think we should refer to what they are pushing as the "Key Recovery Alliance Program". K.R.A.P. is a good description as to what we are going to get from them.
Key recovery is a great thing, as long as it is not mandated by the government.
Hear, hear. If I own a computer and some contractor is writing something on it for me, I should have the right to tell the contractor that I don't want, e.g., any unlicences software and any data encrypted so that I can't read it. Likewise the gubmint or a corporation bigger than mine is free to say that there should be no data on its computers or its contractors computers that they can't read. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) sez:
If I own a computer and some contractor is writing something on it for me, I should have the right to tell the contractor that I don't want, e.g., any unlicences software and any data encrypted so that I can't read it.
well, it's *your* computer...
Likewise the gubmint or a corporation bigger than mine is free to say that there should be no data on its computers or its contractors computers that they can't read.
Whoa! Unless the service contracted for includes the use of the contractors' computers, what business does the employer have poking around in someone else's computer? I can easily see Big Brother demanding exactly that, but He won't hire me under those conditions. Or was that just a slip of the mind, assuming large organizations should have greater powers than smaller ones? I do that too much myself. Stephen
Stephen Humble <deeb@x.org> writes:
Likewise the gubmint or a corporation bigger than mine is free to say that there should be no data on its computers or its contractors computers that they can't read.
Whoa! Unless the service contracted for includes the use of the contractors' computers, what business does the employer have poking around in someone else's computer? I can easily see Big Brother demanding exactly that, but He won't hire me under those conditions.
Or was that just a slip of the mind, assuming large organizations should have greater powers than smaller ones? I do that too much myself.
Well, no. I (and any other employer) should be able to specify that if you do work _for me, you do it on either my equipment, or on equipment configured and secured to my standards. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (5)
-
Alan Olsen -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
Lucky Green -
Stephen Humble