Orda: I think you are both right and wrong. Right in the sense our various intel agencies do NOT want hardware-based security and any attempt to create something pretty much unbreakable--gets a visit from those three-letter agencies.
It is pretty much spelled out in "Crypto" by Steven Levy (2001).
And I believe you are wrong about Wave vs NSA. IMO, Wave was not selling its wares well, so the NSA wasn't concerned with them. Had Wave been more successful, I suspect the govt would have been v interested.
IMO, Wave never rose to the threshold of threat because it could not sell. The paranoia about the govt holding Wave down, IMO, was part and parcel of the attempt to deceive. By claiming the govt was responsible for Wave's demise, the blame slithers off the back of where it should reside (Wave) and attaches itself to the govt.
It was a dream, IMO. At best, Wave was a one-ring side-show with nothing compelling to draw in customers. But by conjuring up a story of the US Govt holding back a company that otherwise would have dominated the world, makes Wave seem a lot more important than it actually was.
Talk to someone in the biz and they will tell you the Govt, while no friend of Wave, did nothing to help it fail--Wave handled that task all by itself, with uncharacteristic efficiency.
That's my view. Enjoying the sharp sounds of former Void Leaders clamming up tensely in the wake of the Wave implosion. How many short weeks ago did these same guys give encouragement and "see" a path to prosperity thru the bankruptcy proceedings?
As they say, success has a thousand fathers; failure is an orphan.
Little Orphan Wavie, waving goodbye to Daddy BigBucks as he flees down the narrow cobblestone alleys, yelling, "Prosperity is just around the corner. One more quarter was all we needed. Damn the gov't and the market that just never 'got it.'"
Blue
