PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by Ed Sto » Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:00:00




says...


> > says...

<snip>

Quote:> Don't simply repeat yourself in a response--which has been proof by
> assertion thus far. I've made my case and supported it, and you've said
> you disagree, without making a comparable case on the other side. Feel
> free to disagree, but without a credible analysis it's just your
> unsupported opinion.

> David

To recount the point of this thread:
1) Sternlight bandied the label "felony" and  "infringer" on the acts
of PZ..
2) I reported the absence of any judicial finding of crime,
indictment, lawsuit, liability, and requested the civility of not
calling PZ a criminal or infringer. I reported on the implicit
accusation of criminality in the term "felon", and described the forum
designated to bring findings in such matters.
3) Sternlight cited the "public person" defenses to charges of
defamation and has now moved to use the word "hypothetical".
4) I have urged that neither PZ nor anyone else, be branded a felon or
an infringer on the basis of assertion, rather than judicial finding,
and that we not give that which we would be unhappy to accept.
5) Sternlight now says my argument is "proof by assertion".
6) My final point in this thread is that no case has been made that PZ
is a felon or an infringer, other than as made by "proof by assertion"
in recent mean-spirited smears. Such arguments remain proof by
assertion until relevant judicial findings are brought forward, rather
than rumors, hearsay, personal vendetta, hallway scuttlebut and
weasel-worded meanness.

--
-------------------------------
Ed Stone

-------------------------------

 
 
 

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by David Sternligh » Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:00:00


What follows is more useful as an instance of how Ed Stone's mind works
than for any historical accuracy:



> says...

> > > says...

> <snip>
> > Don't simply repeat yourself in a response--which has been proof by
> > assertion thus far. I've made my case and supported it, and you've said
> > you disagree, without making a comparable case on the other side. Feel
> > free to disagree, but without a credible analysis it's just your
> > unsupported opinion.

> > David

> To recount the point of this thread:
> 1) Sternlight bandied the label "felony" and  "infringer" on the acts
> of PZ..

No. I quoted a Microtimes article of an interview with him. That was the
initial post and the presenting symptom was an apparent act of Phil's in
saying what he did. Note also your weasel words "bandied the label". Are
you trying to say I made the accusation unconditionally? If so, say so
and then we'll see just who is doing the defaming here.

Quote:> 2) I reported the absence of any judicial finding of crime,
> indictment, lawsuit, liability, and requested the civility of not
> calling PZ a criminal or infringer.

Nonsense. You did not "request the civility". That's some wild fantasy
in your own mind. What you did was attack me because no court had
convicted. You took the position that it didn't happen unless there was
a conviction. Later, you acknowledged in passing (but not in any way to
move off your irrational position), that there could be an "existential"
commission in and of itself, without the need for judicial
determination.

Quote:> I reported on the implicit
> accusation of criminality in the term "felon", and described the forum
> designated to bring findings in such matters.

You did no such thing. You're dreaming. Let's see some quotes of what
you actually said, and its tone and context, rather than this sanitized
piece of self-justification.

Quote:> 3) Sternlight cited the "public person" defenses to charges of
> defamation and has now moved to use the word "hypothetical".

This was entirely separate from the logic or discussion of the above,
and a reader of this sequence alone can see how much of a non sequitur
that introduction is. You are concatenating two separate discussions
(whether Phil did something; whether I did something), threads, and
maybe even some private e-mail.

Quote:> 4) I have urged that neither PZ nor anyone else, be branded a felon or
> an infringer on the basis of assertion, rather than judicial finding,
> and that we not give that which we would be unhappy to accept.

FIne, but the acts which define an infringement are in the law. The law
doesn't say that you infringe only if you're found liable. Rather the
law specifies what it takes to infringe. Someone brings an accusation
and the court tries the accusation and either confirms or rejects it.
The acts, however, stand independently of a court confirmation that the
acts took place, and if you're found liable, you were infringing the
whole time, not just after the finding. You clearly have no conception
of how the law works.

It doesn't take a verdict to make someone a *er. All it takes is
that he kills in cold *, with malice aforethought and without
mitigating circumstances or State sanction. The verdict simply confirms
a charge and leads to societal penalties. If OJ killed Nicole and Ron,
he IS a *er, even if the State can't prove that beyond a reasonable
doubt. If he were to have confessed (without duress), there wouldn't be
any doubt. Phil gave an interview in which he confessed certain acts
which seem to me to be clearly defined as infringing in patent law (and
even tried to mitigate them, albeit with bogus logic having no basis in
that same patent law).

Consider the following hypothetical. Suppose I say unconditionally that
Phil infringed. Phil charges me with defamation. I show that he admitted
the elements of infringement out of his own mouth. Voila! No defamation
EVEN IF he's never brought to court and charged with infringement.

Or consider the OJ Simpson case. It would be fair public comment to
label him a *er even though the State hasn't convicted him of
*. Notice that OJ hasn't sued Ron's father for repeated references
to him on national TV as "the *er". It would be wrong to call OJ a
"convicted *er" just as I've never called Phil "found liable by a
court for infringement" or "a convicted ITAR felon", nor do I do so now.

The above concepts aren't just notional but codified in the concepts of
the law. We have, for example, the legal rubric of "an unindicted
co-conspirator". It doesn't take a conviction to name someone in that
way as a co-conspirator.

We've already discussed this fully, and your attempt to revive it is
just more nonsense. Time for you to stop.

Quote:> 5) Sternlight now says my argument is "proof by assertion".

Because you've never offered a shred of evidence to defend your kooky
view that it didn't happen unless there's a conviction.

Quote:> 6) My final point in this thread is that no case has been made that PZ
> is a felon or an infringer, other than as made by "proof by assertion"
> in recent mean-spirited smears.

To the contrary, the CASE has been made out of Phil's own mouth if the
Microtimes interview quotes him accurately. No CONVICTION or LEGAL
FINDING OF LIABILITY has been made--quite another matter.

Quote:> Such arguments remain proof by
> assertion until relevant judicial findings are brought forward, rather
> than rumors, hearsay, personal vendetta, hallway scuttlebut and
> weasel-worded meanness.

Bullshit. I didn't make up an accusation as to the facts of the case.
Phil (if the interview is accurate) admitted to them, and I simply
analyzed those admissions.

If someone says 'Yeah, I tried to get a license, was turned down, and
made and circulated the patented invention anyway' then it is not
"rumors, hearsay, personal vendetta, hallway scuttlebut(t), and
weasel-worded meanness" to assert he's admitted to infringement. It is a
logical conclusion. But analysis and logic seem beyond you this morning.
Instead you resort to what seems to me to be clearly defamatory
phrasing. That tells us who YOU are. It seems to me it is you who are
peddling "personal vendetta and weasel-worded meanness" here. If even a
friend or colleague of mine had publicly admitted to the facts of
infringement, he'd be a self-confessed infringer.

David

 
 
 

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by W T Sh » Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:00:00



...

Quote:

> To recount the point of this thread:
> 1) Sternlight bandied the label "felony" and  "infringer" on the acts
> of PZ..
> 2) I reported the absence of any judicial finding of crime,
> indictment, lawsuit, liability, and requested the civility of not
> calling PZ a criminal or infringer. I reported on the implicit
> accusation of criminality in the term "felon", and described the forum
> designated to bring findings in such matters.
> 3) Sternlight cited the "public person" defenses to charges of
> defamation and has now moved to use the word "hypothetical".
> 4) I have urged that neither PZ nor anyone else, be branded a felon or
> an infringer on the basis of assertion, rather than judicial finding,
> and that we not give that which we would be unhappy to accept.
> 5) Sternlight now says my argument is "proof by assertion".
> 6) My final point in this thread is that no case has been made that PZ
> is a felon or an infringer, other than as made by "proof by assertion"
> in recent mean-spirited smears. Such arguments remain proof by
> assertion until relevant judicial findings are brought forward, rather
> than rumors, hearsay, personal vendetta, hallway scuttlebut and
> weasel-worded meanness.

Suggesting that someone is guilty when judged innocent through due process
is unAmerican and an insult to us all. It's rumoured that politicians and
the French love to try this sort of thing however.
--
WTShaw, Macintosh Crypto Programmer

To Err is Human.
To Not Correct Your Mistakes is Bad Form.

 
 
 

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by David Sternligh » Thu, 20 Mar 1997 04:00:00



> Suggesting that someone is guilty when judged innocent through due process
> is unAmerican and an insult to us all.

That is flat wrong. There is no "innocent" verdict in American law. In
the example of OJ, he was found "not 'guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt'"--quite a different matter. Many jurors later said they thought
he did it but the State hadn't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt and
that's why they let him off.

In the later civil case almost every juror said that although the rule
was "preponderance of evidence" they were sure he was guilty "beyond a
reasonable doubt"--one juror said "beyond the slightest scintilla of a
shadow of a doubt".

The truth is he got off in the first trial by bad lawyering by the State
and underhanded lawyering by the defense which turned the trial into one
not about OJ's guilt but about Fuhrman's racism, combined with a
prejudiced jury which did not deliberate or even make an attempt to do
so as required by law. It was amply demonstrated that even if Fuhrman
wanted to plant evidence, he had neither the opportunity, the advance
knowledge, nor the timing to do it. What's more it is a capital offense
to plant evidence in a * case in California and Fuhrman knew that.
He had no motive for risking the gas chamber to "get" Simpson. Further,
scurrilous allegations were made against Lang and Van Atter without a
scintilla of evidence.

In the second case the prosecution was much more competent, the defense
used only a few underhanded strategies (because the judge refused to
permit much of the irrelevant fantasy *Cochran and Company tried
earlier), and the jury deliberated at length, examining and re-examining
many crucial pieces of evidence.

What's more the judge clearly thought Simpson was guilty as sin, as
shown by his not reducing the remarkable and deliberately punitive
awards.

Finally, "innocent until proven guilty" is a restriction on government,
not on the opinions of private citizens. To try to squelch private
opinion with such a phony claim is what is "unAmerican and an insult to
us all".

David

 
 
 

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by W T Sh » Thu, 20 Mar 1997 04:00:00




> > Suggesting that someone is guilty when judged innocent through due process
> > is unAmerican and an insult to us all.

> That is flat wrong. There is no "innocent" verdict in American law. In
> the example of OJ, he was found "not 'guilty beyond a reasonable
> doubt'"--quite a different matter. Many jurors later said they thought
> he did it but the State hadn't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt and
> that's why they let him off.

Technically, you may be correct in jargon; lawyers hate to admit failure.
But, the opposite of guilty is still commonly understood to be innocent.
And, a presumption of innocence until actually proven and adjudged as
guilty is even more rooted in Americana.  This is why the high court can
get up tight in cases when people are treated a guilty and maliciously
harassed after the process has concluded with a failed result.  This is
the foundation of the reason that the constitutional provision was
included that prohibits double jeopardy.

It is pure meanness to verbally to punish those who have been freed by the
process based on old failed charges . You certainly have the right to say
what you feel on the matter, but it is still in the nature of obvious
badgering. I have read you before complaining about * a dead horse,
but you like to, don't you?

You see, you are supposed to accept things clearly adjudicated at some
point and move on.  It is exactly your attitude that moves people to do
inhuman things based on centuries' old hatreds and prejudices.

Now, if you have something new, that's a different matter.  

Quote:

> Finally, "innocent until proven guilty" is a restriction on government,

Aren't we glad about that!

Quote:> not on the opinions of private citizens. To try to squelch private
> opinion with such a phony claim is what is "unAmerican and an insult to
> us all".

I have every much right to speak on the matter as you do.  And, I clearly
speak only for myself, which is a statement that you might have trouble
making us believe.
--
WTShaw, Macintosh Crypto Programmer

To Err is Human.
To Not Correct Your Mistakes is Bad Form.

 
 
 

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by David Sternligh » Thu, 20 Mar 1997 04:00:00





> > > Suggesting that someone is guilty when judged innocent through due process
> > > is unAmerican and an insult to us all.

> > That is flat wrong. There is no "innocent" verdict in American law. In
> > the example of OJ, he was found "not 'guilty beyond a reasonable
> > doubt'"--quite a different matter. Many jurors later said they thought
> > he did it but the State hadn't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt and
> > that's why they let him off.

> Technically, you may be correct in jargon; lawyers hate to admit failure.
> But, the opposite of guilty is still commonly understood to be innocent.

I disagree. Enought guilty people get off and are known to get off that
the opposite of guilty is widely thought to be "not proven".

Quote:> And, a presumption of innocence until actually proven and adjudged as
> guilty is even more rooted in Americana.  This is why the high court can
> get up tight in cases when people are treated a guilty and maliciously
> harassed after the process has concluded with a failed result.  This is
> the foundation of the reason that the constitutional provision was
> included that prohibits double jeopardy.

Not "more rooted in Americana". It is a piece of propaganda put out by
criminal defense lawyers and their clients who've gotten off in famous
cases in which they seemingly did it but it cannot be proven. Of course
they'd like to convert the cloud of suspicion to an "innocent" verdict.

Quote:

> It is pure meanness to verbally to punish those who have been freed by the
> process based on old failed charges

Nothing mean about it if they got off on some loophole or on egregiously
bad prosecution or incompetent management by a judge. In fact, in the OJ
Simpson case the bottom line seems to think that Blacks thought Whites
who continued to accuse were anti-Black, while Whites who continued to
accuse did so because they thought OJ did it. Compare the identical
white behavior after the first Menendez trial, when the defendants were
white. And for another counter-example compare white outrage at the
first Rodney King verdict, when the defendants were also white.

No doubt about it. The post-verdict accusations against whites who
thought OJ was guilty were straight racism; nothing more.

Quote:>. You certainly have the right to say
> what you feel on the matter, but it is still in the nature of obvious
> badgering. I have read you before complaining about * a dead horse,
> but you like to, don't you?

More attempted suppression of opinions that are different from yours?

Quote:

> You see, you are supposed to accept things clearly adjudicated at some
> point and move on.

Not when you think an egregious injustice has been done. Can you say
"Dreyfus Case", or are you one of those who thought he should be left to
rot on Devil's Island because the flower of French justice found him
guilty. Thank God for Emile Zola. I'll take his idea of social justice
over yours any day of the week.

Quote:>  It is exactly your attitude that moves people to do
> inhuman things based on centuries' old hatreds and prejudices.

To the contrary it is your attitude which encourages the guilty to get
expensive lawyers, make a mockery of the justice process, and then be
"rehabilitated".

Quote:

> Now, if you have something new, that's a different matter.

> > Finally, "innocent until proven guilty" is a restriction on government,

> Aren't we glad about that!

You're ignoring my point. It is ONLY a restriction on government.

Quote:

> > not on the opinions of private citizens. To try to squelch private
> > opinion with such a phony claim is what is "unAmerican and an insult to
> > us all".

> I have every much right to speak on the matter as you do.  And, I clearly
> speak only for myself, which is a statement that you might have trouble
> making us believe.

Aha! Now we see your snake-like head peeping out above the tall grass,
despite your posturing about "innocent until proven guilty". What
hypocrisy!

David

 
 
 

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by David Sternligh » Thu, 20 Mar 1997 04:00:00



> And, a presumption of innocence until actually proven and adjudged as
> guilty is even more rooted in Americana.

<lots of nonsense omitted>

Quote:> And, I clearly
> speak only for myself, which is a statement that you might have trouble
> making us believe.

Congratulations. You win the "Hypocrite of the Year" award.

David

 
 
 

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by Richard K. Downe » Fri, 21 Mar 1997 04:00:00






> > > > Suggesting that someone is guilty when judged innocent through due process
> > > > is unAmerican and an insult to us all.

> > > That is flat wrong. There is no "innocent" verdict in American law. In
> > > the example of OJ, he was found "not 'guilty beyond a reasonable
> > > doubt'"--quite a different matter. Many jurors later said they thought
> > > he did it but the State hadn't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt and
> > > that's why they let him off.

> > Technically, you may be correct in jargon; lawyers hate to admit failure.
> > But, the opposite of guilty is still commonly understood to be innocent.

> I disagree. Enought guilty people get off and are known to get off that
> the opposite of guilty is widely thought to be "not proven".

> > And, a presumption of innocence until actually proven and adjudged as
> > guilty is even more rooted in Americana.
[snip]

> Not "more rooted in Americana". It is a piece of propaganda put out by
> criminal defense lawyers and their clients who've gotten off in famous
> cases in which they seemingly did it but it cannot be proven. Of course
> they'd like to convert the cloud of suspicion to an "innocent" verdict.

[snip still more]

OK, so Sternlight believes that all defendants are guilty until proven
innocent, and yet he says that there is no such thing as a verdict of
"innocent," only a verdict of "not guilty" -- which only means that the
cops have their man but they couldn't prove it. So to Sternlight all
defendents are guilty and if we would only come to our senses as a
society and do away with the trials we'd get those bad guys off the
street and have a more perfect society.

SO WHAT? WHO CARES? What does any of this have to do with PGP?

Sternlight, move to Cuba or Iraq or some other place where the dictator
agrees with your views. As a bonus, PGP is illegal in those places, so
you won't have to argue the merits of giving the goverment copies of
your keys. Best of all, internet use is also illegal there, so we won't
have to read any more of your posts.
--
Rick Downer

These opinions are not mine, they're Boeing's. Boeing paid me while I
opined them, so Boeing owns them. But Boeing might not agree with them.

 
 
 

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by David Sternligh » Sat, 22 Mar 1997 04:00:00







> > > > > Suggesting that someone is guilty when judged innocent through due process
> > > > > is unAmerican and an insult to us all.

> > > > That is flat wrong. There is no "innocent" verdict in American law. In
> > > > the example of OJ, he was found "not 'guilty beyond a reasonable
> > > > doubt'"--quite a different matter. Many jurors later said they thought
> > > > he did it but the State hadn't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt and
> > > > that's why they let him off.

> > > Technically, you may be correct in jargon; lawyers hate to admit failure.
> > > But, the opposite of guilty is still commonly understood to be innocent.

> > I disagree. Enought guilty people get off and are known to get off that
> > the opposite of guilty is widely thought to be "not proven".

> > > And, a presumption of innocence until actually proven and adjudged as
> > > guilty is even more rooted in Americana.
> [snip]

> > Not "more rooted in Americana". It is a piece of propaganda put out by
> > criminal defense lawyers and their clients who've gotten off in famous
> > cases in which they seemingly did it but it cannot be proven. Of course
> > they'd like to convert the cloud of suspicion to an "innocent" verdict.
> [snip still more]

> OK, so Sternlight believes that all defendants are guilty until proven
> innocent,

I said no such thing. I said that the "innocent until proven guilty"
rubric applies only to the government/legal system, and that people were
free to form their own opinions.

Quote:> and yet he says that there is no such thing as a verdict of
> "innocent," only a verdict of "not guilty" -- which only means that the
> cops have their man but they couldn't prove it.

Your education seems to me to have been seriously defective if you think
that "not A" means "B". It means "not-A". In fact the old Scots had a
third verdict which we might with profit adopt for such troubling cases:
"Not proven". Does Boeing design airplanes this way?

Quote:> So to Sternlight all
> defendents are guilty and if we would only come to our senses as a
> society and do away with the trials we'd get those bad guys off the
> street and have a more perfect society.

You continue to demonstrate your defamatory style for even the most
ill-educated among your colleagues to see.

Quote:

> SO WHAT? WHO CARES? What does any of this have to do with PGP?

Ethics.

Quote:

> Sternlight, move to Cuba or Iraq or some other place where the dictator
> agrees with your views.

Crude smear, not unlike "Why don't you go back where you came from?"
addressed to blacks, jews, hispanics, anyone the writer doesn't like.

Quote:>As a bonus, PGP is illegal in those places, so
> you won't have to argue the merits of giving the goverment copies of
> your keys.

I think this to be factually incorrect. Could you quote from the Cuban
or Iraqi crypto laws for the benefit of the rest of us? Unauthorized
crypto might be risky in a police state, but they don't need laws to get
you.

Quote:> Best of all, internet use is also illegal there, so we won't
> have to read any more of your posts.

That is also factually inaccurate as well as offensively phrased. I
don't think much of a company whose employees post the kind of nonsense
you have.

> --
> Rick Downer

> These opinions are not mine, they're Boeing's. Boeing paid me while I
> opined them, so Boeing owns them. But Boeing might not agree with them.

I cannot believe Boeing is hiring people like you these days. By copy,
I'll let them check if that's so or if this post is a crude forgery from
a non-employee.

David

 
 
 

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by Jim Hi » Sun, 23 Mar 1997 04:00:00



> In the example of OJ

... which we weren't discussing, and is, to boot, completely irrelevant
unless you're attempting to assert some similarity between the
prosecution's failure in their court case against OJ and their failure to
even file one against PZ, in which case it's at best stupid.

Jim
--

 
 
 

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by David Sternligh » Sun, 23 Mar 1997 04:00:00


Here's another opinion:

From "Sex, Laws, and *space" by Jonathan Wallace and Mark Mangan;
Henry Holt, Owl Books 1997; ISBN 0-8050-5298-4, p.48

"For years PGP was outlaw software that infringed on the RSA patent,
which is controlled by a private company, RSA Data Securities (sic) Inc.
(RSADSI). Zimmerman (sic) tried unsuccessfully to persuade the president
of RSADSI, Jim Bidzos, to give him a free license" .... "When Zimmerman
realized he couldn't get the rights, he ignored them."  ... "He knew PGP
was illegal" ... "Bidzos threatened to sue unless he stopped
distributing PGP. Although Zimmerman complied, the rabbit was out, and
multiplying like mad." ... "Zimmerman bypassed strict patent laws,
ignored explicit export laws"

An interesting book, with chapters on the net and crypto, bomb making,
*, the famous ** hoax, internet libel, and the scientologists.
A concluding chapter suggests some principles for *space, drawing
heavily on a 1983 book by Ithiel De Sola Pool, "Technologies of
Freedom", Harvard University Press, which today seems prescient. Just
out in paperback.

David Sternlight

 
 
 

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by W T Sh » Mon, 24 Mar 1997 04:00:00



> Here's another opinion:

> From "Sex, Laws, and *space" by Jonathan Wallace and Mark Mangan;
> Henry Holt, Owl Books 1997; ISBN 0-8050-5298-4, p.48

> "For years PGP was outlaw software that infringed on the RSA patent,
> which is controlled by a private company, RSA Data Securities (sic) Inc.
> (RSADSI). Zimmerman (sic) tried unsuccessfully to persuade the president
> of RSADSI, Jim Bidzos, to give him a free license" .... "When Zimmerman
> realized he couldn't get the rights, he ignored them."  ... "He knew PGP
> was illegal" ... "Bidzos threatened to sue unless he stopped
> distributing PGP. Although Zimmerman complied, the rabbit was out, and
> multiplying like mad." ... "Zimmerman bypassed strict patent laws,
> ignored explicit export laws"

> An interesting book, with chapters on the net and crypto, bomb making,
> *, the famous ** hoax, internet libel, and the scientologists.
> A concluding chapter suggests some principles for *space, drawing
> heavily on a 1983 book by Ithiel De Sola Pool, "Technologies of
> Freedom", Harvard University Press, which today seems prescient. Just
> out in paperback.

Boy, this sounds like a serious work!  It looks like another case of money
in the making.  But, pardon me, I think I'll pass on this one.
--
WTShaw, Macintosh Crypto Programmer

Better to use a long passphrase that you can
remember than a short easily forgotton one.

 
 
 

PGP, Phil Zimmermann and the law

Post by David Sternligh » Mon, 24 Mar 1997 04:00:00




> > Here's another opinion:

> > From "Sex, Laws, and *space" by Jonathan Wallace and Mark Mangan;
> > Henry Holt, Owl Books 1997; ISBN 0-8050-5298-4, p.48

> > "For years PGP was outlaw software that infringed on the RSA patent,
> > which is controlled by a private company, RSA Data Securities (sic) Inc.
> > (RSADSI). Zimmerman (sic) tried unsuccessfully to persuade the president
> > of RSADSI, Jim Bidzos, to give him a free license" .... "When Zimmerman
> > realized he couldn't get the rights, he ignored them."  ... "He knew PGP
> > was illegal" ... "Bidzos threatened to sue unless he stopped
> > distributing PGP. Although Zimmerman complied, the rabbit was out, and
> > multiplying like mad." ... "Zimmerman bypassed strict patent laws,
> > ignored explicit export laws"

> > An interesting book, with chapters on the net and crypto, bomb making,
> > *, the famous ** hoax, internet libel, and the scientologists.
> > A concluding chapter suggests some principles for *space, drawing
> > heavily on a 1983 book by Ithiel De Sola Pool, "Technologies of
> > Freedom", Harvard University Press, which today seems prescient. Just
> > out in paperback.

> Boy, this sounds like a serious work!  It looks like another case of money
> in the making.  But, pardon me, I think I'll pass on this one.
> --

Do you have some problem with historical and policy analysis works? The
above chapters were each on what actually happened on the net (the one
on bomb-making, for example, wasn't about how to make a bomb, but about
those who posted such information on the net, what the reactions were,
and what that implied for policy). And the descriptions gave rather more
complete and detailed information and references on the internet-related
aspects of each topic than even this net * was aware of. The book
is an invaluable reference for those concerned about civil liberties on
the Internet, and its final chapter is quite thoughtful and will gladden
the hearts of most libertarians here.

What is more, it's what the trade calls a "quality paperback", not a
mass-market paperback, with all that implies for format, price,
distribution, etc. If the author wanted to make a buck on
sensationalism, he'd have written quite a different book, and published
it in quite a different format.

David

 
 
 

1. PGP, Phil Zimmermann, and the law

Interested readers may wish to know that I took legal advice today from
two senior attorneys specializing in Internet and intellectual property
law, who had a booth at Internet World in LA. Their law firm focusses on
Internet-related practice.

They confirm my earlier assertions in discussion here, and in fact went
far beyond my characterization of Phil's contentions.

They confirm absolutely that one may not even practice a patent for
personal and private use without a license, even with no distribution
outside one's home, without infringing. MAKING a patented object is
considered practicing the patent, whether one subsequently uses the
object or not.

They thought Phil Zimmermann's quoted assertion (in response to a
question in a recent MicroTimes interview about infringing RSADSI's
patent) that he had legal advice that he was ok because he didn't charge
for PGP "ridiculous". I won't quote their strongest remarks about Phil's
claim, to spare the finer sensibilities of his fans.

They also had some fairly strong things to say about his contention
elsewhere that he wasn't infringing RSADSI's COPYRIGHT because he coded
RSA from scratch.

At the conference I also asked Netscape about their plans for encrypted
PKCS e-mail and the use of Verisign certificates for same and for
message authentication. They say it will be included in the next preview
vesion of Netscape Communicator, out within about two months.

David

2. USR just STOPS

3. Buying PGP 8.0 direct from Phil Zimmermann

4. FS: Bitsurfr Pro & High Speed Serial Card

5. Phil Zimmermann on recent FUD and PGP 5.0 plans

6. Codswallop? What? Stop the public flames. :)

7. *** Message from Phil Zimmermann ***

8. FS98 California upgrade

9. Phil Zimmermann to be a millionaire

10. Phil Zimmermann confesses?

11. FYI: Zimmermann to Network Associates: Sell PGP back to me or open-source it

12. Zimmermann's personal response to PGP remarks on Canal+

13. Open Letter to Phillip Zimmermann & PGP regarding Keylogger Passphrase theft.