Re: Netscape

At 15:27 7/20/96, Tom Weinstein wrote:
[Site distributing Netscape US elided. Thanks Alex. There was no wait.]

>Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
>believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?  Do you
>believe it will make them change the law?  No.  What it will do is make
>them remove our permission to distribute this stuff.

I doubt that. PGP has been distributed for years with less safeguards than
Netscape. It is available on more free-world sites than Netscape US. This
did not prompt the powers that be to force MIT to take down their site. The
feds know that it is impossible to prevent software that is available on
the net from being exported. Why would they harass Netscape once the
inevitable happens?



-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.
   Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November.
   Vote Harry Browne for President.

Lucky Green wrote:
> At 15:27 7/20/96, Tom Weinstein wrote:
> 
>> Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
>> believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?  Do
>> you believe it will make them change the law?  No.  What it will do
>> is make them remove our permission to distribute this stuff.
> 
> I doubt that. PGP has been distributed for years with less safeguards
> than Netscape. It is available on more free-world sites than Netscape
> US. This did not prompt the powers that be to force MIT to take down
> their site. The feds know that it is impossible to prevent software
> that is available on the net from being exported. Why would they
> harass Netscape once the inevitable happens?

Well, for starters, the genius who put it out there put out a beta,
which has an expiration date, instead of waiting for the final release.
Secondly, millions of people don't use PGP.

Also, notice the simple verification system MIT was allowed to use, and
the complex one we're required to use.

-- 
You should only break rules of style if you can    | Tom Weinstein
coherently explain what you gain by so doing.      | tomw@netscape.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:

> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 13:27:45 -0700
> From: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com>
> To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Netscape
> 
> Lucky Green wrote:
> > At 15:27 7/20/96, Tom Weinstein wrote:
> > 
> >> Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
> >> believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?  Do
> >> you believe it will make them change the law?  No.  What it will do
> >> is make them remove our permission to distribute this stuff.
> > 
> > I doubt that. PGP has been distributed for years with less safeguards
> > than Netscape. It is available on more free-world sites than Netscape
> > US. This did not prompt the powers that be to force MIT to take down
> > their site. The feds know that it is impossible to prevent software
> > that is available on the net from being exported. Why would they
> > harass Netscape once the inevitable happens?
> 
> Well, for starters, the genius who put it out there put out a beta,
> which has an expiration date, instead of waiting for the final release.
> Secondly, millions of people don't use PGP.

Hrmm.. a few glimpses at a hex->machine code chart and a simple hex editor
should get past _that_ now shouldn't it?

> 
> Also, notice the simple verification system MIT was allowed to use, and
> the complex one we're required to use.
> 

I'm curious, exactly whop is it that _required_ you to use that system.?

> -- 
> You should only break rules of style if you can    | Tom Weinstein
> coherently explain what you gain by so doing.      | tomw@netscape.com
> 
Style is standing up for what you beleive in.  Netscape obviously has
none, or they would be activly fighting the ITAR.

 --Deviant
Whatever occurs from love is always beyond good and evil.
		-- Friedrich Nietzsche


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMfUhSDAJap8fyDMVAQFZmAf+JaD4Z5wmt6qkyvJK1nhg8xjZF4z0LoGi
AyhFZ8sAZCgcu65YVcH9NnwXgJCGdq/OK2eLZlydM8w/tnIZJtsgxnX5rf8gb7a2
zgC8G4lr8OPKZPDP/85z8au/sM5wkUZ/sR9w+yTBn+UOmLH9sl+1r07rzMku39Zj
LTrCp6B9I0TjaTQjiZyUaiClp67nJxobGWPDByTMMqJeN34V79ikRPBTI/FzcxD9
mk+TwyIVrHqFC117o2X4GuJbDPPqIWRBNDM1MpWmdECOOGEpkPydnJxmub+IaeBu
WN2wPNzE2m9FVHQ0YVIScIt4jw2t4rr46BxfeDT+UJPIkvvhq6+0Ww==
=NKO0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

The Deviant wrote:
>
>> You should only break rules of style if you can   | Tom Weinstein
>> coherently explain what you gain by so doing.     | tomw@netscape.com
>
> Style is standing up for what you beleive in.  Netscape obviously has
> none, or they would be activly fighting the ITAR.

Anyone who believes that Netscape is not actively fighting ITAR is a
fool.

-- 
You should only break rules of style if you can    | Tom Weinstein
coherently explain what you gain by so doing.      | tomw@netscape.com

shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green) writes:
> At 15:27 7/20/96, Tom Weinstein wrote:
> >Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
> >believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?  Do you
> >believe it will make them change the law?  No.  What it will do is make
> >them remove our permission to distribute this stuff.
> 
> I doubt that. PGP has been distributed for years with less safeguards
> than Netscape. It is available on more free-world sites than Netscape
> US. This did not prompt the powers that be to force MIT to take down
> their site.
> ...

I must agree with Lucky.  I am quite sure that even if Netscape was not
begin distributed over the net, copies would still be uploaded to
international sites by folks practicing Civil disobedience.  Only they'd
have to wait to get the release from a store or some other source.

If you think the net distribution channel is in danger, consider these
suggestions.  The basic idea is to provide plausible denyability that
the net site was the source of the "leak".

Offer to send the latest version on floppy to US addresses of
the first 100 people who request them.  I only suggest 100 to keep your
costs down.  But any decent sized number would do.

I got my copy bundled with my ISP software.  So make sure your ISP and
other redistributers have their copies a few days before you make it
available on the net.  Then new ISP accounts will start getting copies
before the net copies become available.

This may not work as well for beta's, but I'm sure other approaches
along these lines would work too.  Of course, it make sense to make sure
the binaries used in each of these channels are indistinguishable.

Ted Anderson

At 5:09 PM -0700 7/22/96, Ted Anderson wrote:
>shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green) writes:
>> At 15:27 7/20/96, Tom Weinstein wrote:
>> >Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
>> >believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?  Do you
>> >believe it will make them change the law?  No.  What it will do is make
>> >them remove our permission to distribute this stuff.
>>
>> I doubt that. PGP has been distributed for years with less safeguards
>> than Netscape. It is available on more free-world sites than Netscape
>> US. This did not prompt the powers that be to force MIT to take down
>> their site.
>> ...
>
>I must agree with Lucky.  I am quite sure that even if Netscape was not
>begin distributed over the net, copies would still be uploaded to
>international sites by folks practicing Civil disobedience.

To call simple lawbreaking by cowards working in secret "civil
disobedience" is to defame the name of Gandhi, King, and all the legitimate
protesters of modern history. Civil disobedience must be seen publicly, and
must be done by observable individuals. Masked men throwing stink bombs is
not civil disobedience--it's hooliganism.

David

David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> writes:
> >I must agree with Lucky.  I am quite sure that even if Netscape was not
> >begin distributed over the net, copies would still be uploaded to
> >international sites by folks practicing Civil disobedience.
> 
> To call simple lawbreaking by cowards working in secret "civil
> disobedience" is to defame the name of Gandhi, King, and all the legitimate
> protesters of modern history. Civil disobedience must be seen publicly, and
> must be done by observable individuals. Masked men throwing stink bombs is
> not civil disobedience--it's hooliganism.

As you can clearly see I did *not* suggest that the software needed to
be uploaded anonymously.  I agree that public disobedience has a much
large impact than private disobedience, but I think the value of private
disobedience is still positive.

Uploading critical software which computer users can access accross the
globe, important as it is, is not an ideal method of practicing (or
mispracticing if you prefer) Civil Disobedience.  The problem is that
only a single copy only needs to be uploaded and only one person really
gets "credit" for the upload.

Better is something like Vince Cate's "Arms Trafficker" page:
    http://online.offshore.com.ai/arms-trafficker/
I am there at #172 striking a tiny but not invisible blow for freedom.

172 Mon May  6  7:56:39 1996 Ted Anderson <ota+@transarc.com> user-168-121-79-76.dialup.mindspring.com  168.121.79.76

Ted Anderson