[88072] in Cypherpunks
Re: Attitude and Assumptions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ulf =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=F6ller?=)
Sat Oct 11 09:51:37 1997
To: jon@pgp.com
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:47:47 +0200 (GMT+0200)
Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971010180024.00ad8ce0@mail.pgp.com> from "Jon Callas" at Oct 10, 97 06:00:24 pm
From: 3umoelle@informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Ulf =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=F6ller?=)
Reply-To: 3umoelle@informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Ulf =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=F6ller?=)
> The last thing that really, really bugs me is the hostility that's directed
> towards PGP Inc. because now we're an Inc.
There is no hostility towards PGP, Inc. It is just that many people
think your software contains a feature which has very bad consequences.
Incidentally, I heard a speech by Phil Zimmermann the day before PGP
5.5 was released. He expressed deep concerns about key escrow,
epxressly including PGP products. Think about it.
Personally, I think a corporation has the right to access their
employees' business communications, so as long as private messages
remain private, there CAK is no big problem (not that it is exactly
useful, either). However, when you claim that you are reacting to
to non-existant public safety concerns, I wonder what the real agenda
is.
It is also surprising that you fail to recognize the difference
between communications keys and storage keys.
