Official Anonymizing

[Adam Shostack]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 07:34:37AM -0700, John Young wrote:
| Thanks for the cites of Gatti.
| 
| Greg's disclosure of C2Net's sales is appreciated. Perhaps not
| surprising. What would be surprising, maybe, would be disclosure
| as ZKS did in its earliest days, of reporting on meetings C2Net was
| having with law enforcement officials about its technology. Those
| admirably exceptionable ZKS reports then stopped, at least I didn't
| see them after the first few. What I got instead was a rush of 
| advertising from ZKS. Fair enough, as far as business 
| development goes.

They'd have gotten rather stale after the first few.  After all, we
didn't include names, so the only thing you'd have seen changing was
the date.  As far as I know, there haven't been any in a while.  Once
we got our message and delivery down, the message seemed to spread
that we were not adding any back doors, and hey, this is useful for
undercover work and preventing crimes.

TLAs have gotten no special delivery packages.  I don't really see why
they'd want them, except perhaps to shave their budgets.  We said when
we shipped 1.0 that we wouldn't stand up to a TLA attack.  We (Ian,
myself, and later Adam Back) have written a 15 page paper on how to
attack our system.  Which is far more than any other security or
privacy provider I'm aware of.

Adam


-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume