Re: Netscape download requirements

I realize you're probably overloaded with email/etc, but as you
don't read c'punks, I'll take a chance with a personal note 
anyway... 

>> Well one 'ITAR gangsta' can alwas upload the linux version to a
>> 'liberated ftp site'.
>Great.  Convince the government to withdraw our permission
>and never to give it again while the current laws stand.  
>Please don't do this.

Allow the government to think that we think it has the right to give 
us their permission and we've lost everything.  The government should
need OUR permission, not the other way 'round.  To give the government
the impression that we will bow to it's power on these matters may be
financially beneficial for a corporation, but is unacceptable and 
humiliating for free individuals.

>I'd bet on the first.  Why screw with this?  We worked hard
>to make this possible and you want to ruin it.  Sheesh.

Because freedom doesn't come in degrees, it's all or nothing.

>"I hate the government so I'll blow up a federal building
>and then the FBI will get more money and attention and
>power and, um, that'll show 'em, er, ah....."

Exporting crypto-systems and killing people is comparing apples
and hand grenades.  Please come up with a relevant analogy.

>For those of you who think some of our info requests go too far: well,
>my position to the US was: I want to do a download.  I'll do what it
>takes.  Given all the ITAR vagueness and total lack of case law, I 
>think both sides did very well.  While I don't agree with the 

While I am one of those who believe your info requests do go too far,
I also appreciate the fact that you wouldn't be able to "do a download"
without it.  I thank you for your efforts on these fronts, and have 
two things to say regarding:

1)  Please don't chastise individuals who take direct action and use
civil disobediance as a measure to change bad laws and policies (ie by
making your companies software available internationally).  When
done on a mass scale, the long-term benefits FAR outweigh the short
term consequences.  While you as a corporation find it much more 
difficult to take such actions, as they would most likely ruin your
corporation, individuals acting in this capacity cannot be ruined quite
so readily.

2)  Please don't misuse the information you gain by logging all your
network traffic.  I like using Navigator, and would hate to have to 
give up using it due to some breach of trust by Netscape regarding 
someone's personal info. 
 
>wrong place to wage battle.  Rather than attack some odd piece 
>of enforcement, participate in the debate over the regulations
>themselves.  Strides are being made.  This is a good time for 
>your voice to be heard. If you don't like this mechanism, don't 
>use it.  It's your choice.

I agree mostly.  I would rephrase, however, to say: In addition to
attacking odd pieces of enforcement, participate in the debate over
the regulations themselves.  Besides, contrary to your gist, this 
is probably one of the most prominent pieces of enforcement, and 
therefore a very logical candidate for attack.

//cerridwyn//

At 1:47 AM -0700 7/19/96, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote:

>Allow the government to think that we think it has the right to give
>us their permission and we've lost everything.  The government should
>need OUR permission, not the other way 'round.

That's what happened, or didn't you notice that ITAR is based on laws
passed by an elected Congress? Didn't you notice that thus far when people
with one position on the matter have tried to persuade Congress to modify
ITAR, they have failed? This is a (as far as it goes) a democracy, not a
'Llewyellyn and those who agree with him' dictatorship.

David

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:
> At 1:47 AM -0700 7/19/96, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote:
> >Allow the government to think that we think it has the right to give
> >us their permission and we've lost everything.  The government should
> >need OUR permission, not the other way 'round.
> That's what happened, or didn't you notice that ITAR is based on laws
> passed by an elected Congress? Didn't you notice that thus far when people
> with one position on the matter have tried to persuade Congress to modify
> ITAR, they have failed? This is a (as far as it goes) a democracy, not a
> 'Llewyellyn and those who agree with him' dictatorship.

     I pledge allegience to this flag and THE REPUBLIC for which it stands.

     REPUBLIC, GET IT? Rule by LAW as opposed to the tyranny of STUPIDITY 
called democracy.
     ITAR _may_ be based on laws passed by congress, but since the NSA has
yet to try the ITAR in court, and only uses it to threaten business with,
we don't know how the courts will interpret these rules, much less the laws
that give UNELECTED OFFICIALS the authority to make LAWS. 

    Yer an idiot. Not just for what you wrote above, but for just about 
everything you've said since you started posting. I had never read any 
of your writings before, and they seemed rational so I was inclined to 
give you a chance, even tho' I disagreed with you. 

    You have proben yourself to be a facist, and AFAIC there is only 1 
use for a facist. Ballistic testing.

     Yes, I do know what a facist is, and no, I am not comparing you to
The leader of Germany during WWII. 
 


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

snow <snow@smoke.suba.com> writes:
> On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:
<spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam>
>      I pledge allegience to this flag and THE REPUBLIC for which it stands.
>
>      REPUBLIC, GET IT? Rule by LAW as opposed to the tyranny of STUPIDITY
> called democracy.
>      ITAR _may_ be based on laws passed by congress, but since the NSA has
> yet to try the ITAR in court, and only uses it to threaten business with,
> we don't know how the courts will interpret these rules, much less the laws
> that give UNELECTED OFFICIALS the authority to make LAWS.
>
>     Yer an idiot. Not just for what you wrote above, but for just about
> everything you've said since you started posting. I had never read any
> of your writings before, and they seemed rational so I was inclined to
> give you a chance, even tho' I disagreed with you.
>
>     You have proben yourself to be a facist, and AFAIC there is only 1
> use for a facist. Ballistic testing.
>
>      Yes, I do know what a facist is, and no, I am not comparing you to
> The leader of Germany during WWII.

I share your sentiment. "Dr." David Sternlight is the moral equivalent of
Archimedes Plutonium, Dr. Jozeph Goebbels, and Janet Reno combined.

Please don't follow up on anything David Sternlight sends to the cypherpunks
mailing list, no matter what the provocation. The asshole thrives on attention.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:

> At 1:47 AM -0700 7/19/96, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote:
> 
> >Allow the government to think that we think it has the right to give
> >us their permission and we've lost everything.  The government should
> >need OUR permission, not the other way 'round.
> 
> ...This is a (as far as it goes) a democracy, not a 'Llewyellyn
> and those who agree with him' dictatorship. 

Actually, for what it's worth, this (meaning the US) is a 
Constitutionally limited democratic republic, NOT a dictatorship
of the majority, the proletariate, etc.  That has been tried and
failed too many times to mention.  Read the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments to the Constitution for further enlightenment.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 3:25 PM -0700 7/19/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                          SANDY SANDFORT
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>C'punks,
>
>On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:
>
>> At 1:47 AM -0700 7/19/96, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote:
>>
>> >Allow the government to think that we think it has the right to give
>> >us their permission and we've lost everything.  The government should
>> >need OUR permission, not the other way 'round.
>>
>> ...This is a (as far as it goes) a democracy, not a 'Llewyellyn
>> and those who agree with him' dictatorship.
>
>Actually, for what it's worth, this (meaning the US) is a
>Constitutionally limited democratic republic, NOT a dictatorship
>of the majority, the proletariate, etc.  That has been tried and
>failed too many times to mention.  Read the Ninth and Tenth
>Amendments to the Constitution for further enlightenment.

I've been around for so long that I knew when I typed the above someone
would try to take my words literally in order to avoid my point and pick
the above nit. My point stands--this is not a 'whoever and those who agree
with him' dictatorship. The administration has the legislative permission
the Constitution provides for through our elected representatives, and a
few who disagree have no standing to say that the government should ask
their permission yet again.

If they disagree with what Congress and the administration have done, there
are well-established ways to petition Congress to change it. If they fail,
t.s.--that's the way our system works. YOU don't get to force your will on
the wider population, nor do YOU get to tell them that they are poor
benighted fools who should agree with YOUR views on civil liberties. To
assert otherwise is fascism, authoritarianism, dictatorship, pick one.

David

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:

> I've been around for so long that I knew when I typed the above
> someone would try to take my words literally in order to avoid
> my point and pick the above nit.

I don't think the 9th and 10th Amendments are nits.

> If they disagree with what Congress and the administration have
> done, there are well-established ways to petition Congress to
> change it. 

Read the 9th, David.  Our rights exist whether or not the current
regime recognizes them.  The reason Congress gets away with so
many violation is in part due to the current population being
willing to exchange a false sense of security for out and out
violations of the clear words of the Bill of Rights.  That may 
be democracy, but at the expense of Constitutionally guaranteed
freedoms.  Read the 9th and 10th, David.

> If they fail, t.s.--that's the way our system works.

Or doesn't work.

> YOU don't get to force your will on the wider population,

No, you merely get to stop others from forcing their will on you.

> nor do YOU get to tell them that they are poor benighted fools
> who should agree with YOUR views on civil liberties. To assert
> otherwise is fascism, authoritarianism, dictatorship, pick one.

No, David, it's free speech.  Read the 1st Amendmend, David. 


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 8:13 AM -0700 7/20/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

>
>Read the 9th, David.  Our rights exist whether or not the current
>regime recognizes them.  The reason Congress gets away with so
>many violation is in part due to the current population being
>willing to exchange a false sense of security for out and out
>violations of the clear words of the Bill of Rights.  That may
>be democracy, but at the expense of Constitutionally guaranteed
>freedoms.  Read the 9th and 10th, David.

"9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nothing in here about ITAR.

"10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be construed to extend
           ^^^
to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United
States by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign
state."

Nothing in here about ITAR.

On the other hand:

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defence,"

...

"The Congress shall have power

...

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,
and with the Indian tribes;

...

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution
the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the
government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Looks like ITAR is covered there.

So don't (as the Russians say) try to teach your Grandmother how to suck eggs.

David

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:

> "9th Amendment
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not
> be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> 
> Nothing in here about ITAR.

No David, there isn't.  That's because ITAR represents neither an
enumerated nor unenumerated right of the people.  The application
of ITAR to speech, however, is a violation of the 1st Amendment
which is enumerated.

> "10th Amendment
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be
> construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
> prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of
> another State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign
> state."

You "accidentally" misquoted the 10th.  It actually says:

	The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
	Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
	reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
> Nothing in here about ITAR.

See my explanation of the 9th Amendment, supra.

> "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
> establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
> defence,"
> 
> ...
> 
> "The Congress shall have power
> 
> ...
> 
> To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,
> and with the Indian tribes;
> 
> ...
> 
> To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
> execution
> the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the
> government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
> 
> Looks like ITAR is covered there.

Wrong.  Everything quoted above was adopted prior to the adoption
of the Bill of Rights.  In other words, the 1st, 2nd,...9th and
10th AMENDMENTS came after and modify (or amend, get it?) the 
clauses you rely so much on.

Now I see you have "accidentally" forgotten to address my response
to your blatently unconstitutional assertion that I don't have
the right to say that the system is being abused.  Please defend
that assertion, or at least tell us how you think the 1st Amendment
is a nit.

> So don't (as the Russians say) try to teach your Grandmother
> how to suck eggs.

Believe me, David, I don't think I could teach you anything.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 9:22 AM -0700 7/20/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:
>
>> "9th Amendment
>>
>> The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not
>> be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>>
>> Nothing in here about ITAR.
>
>No David, there isn't.  That's because ITAR represents neither an
>enumerated nor unenumerated right of the people.  The application
>of ITAR to speech, however, is a violation of the 1st Amendment
>which is enumerated.

So now you're switching your ground to the First Amendment? Why can't you
argue straight out?

>
>> "10th Amendment
>>
>> The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be
>> construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
>> prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of
>> another State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign
>> state."
>
>You "accidentally" misquoted the 10th.  It actually says:
>
>	The powers not delegated to the United States by the
>	Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are
>	reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Slip of the editor, not a conspiracy. THe point is that it says "not
delegated to the United States", and as I showed below, powers which cover
ITAR were so delegated.

>
>> Nothing in here about ITAR.
>
>See my explanation of the 9th Amendment, supra.
>
>> "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
>> establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
>> defence,"
>>
>> ...
>>
>> "The Congress shall have power
>>
>> ...
>>
>> To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,
>> and with the Indian tribes;
>>
>> ...
>>
>> To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
>> execution
>> the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the
>> government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
>>
>> Looks like ITAR is covered there.
>
>Wrong.  Everything quoted above was adopted prior to the adoption
>of the Bill of Rights.  In other words, the 1st, 2nd,...9th and
>10th AMENDMENTS came after and modify (or amend, get it?) the
>clauses you rely so much on.

This is an unsustainable position for which you have no legal basis. Your
implied claim is that an amendment implicitly repeals prior language. As
we've seen from other amendments, if prior language is to be repealed that
is done explicitly or by reference in the amendment. There are some Supreme
Court cases because there are conflicts between the implicit content of
some amendments (the famous "penumbra of the Constitution") and prior
language. And we've seen many cases where even strict constructionists held
in Dicta that prior powers weren't implicitly repealed by the First,
particularly in speech cases. The famous "Freedom of Speech does not extent
to the right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre" is one. "The
Constitution is not a suicide pact." is another.

But Con Law is a bit off topic for this group, eh? Let's agree to disagree.

>Believe me, David, I don't think I could teach you anything.

That's both false and defamatory unless you're commenting on your own
shortcomings as a teacher. Some here will tell you that they've taught me a
lot, and that when evidence or logic are clear, I do alter my views. In the
instant case neither appertains, at least not so far.

Best;
David

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:

> But Con Law is a bit off topic for this group, eh? Let's agree
> to disagree.

Sure, I'll let you wiggle out of a discussion in which you were 
previously all to willing to participate.  I don't think, though,
that you should get off the hook so easily for your amazing--and
unsupportable assault on free speech, to wit:

> nor do YOU get to tell them that they are poor benighted fools
> who should agree with YOUR views on civil liberties. To assert
> otherwise is fascism, authoritarianism, dictatorship, pick one.

I'd appreciate it if you would defend, retract or "explain" why
I don't get to tell ANYONE that they should agree with my views
of civil liberties.  This is the third time I've addressed your
curious statement.  Please explain yourself.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 10:40 AM -0700 7/20/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>
>On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:
>
>> But Con Law is a bit off topic for this group, eh? Let's agree
>> to disagree.
>
>Sure, I'll let you wiggle out of a discussion in which you were
>previously all to willing to participate.

No wiggling involved. I think I refuted you decisively but recognize that
we've reached the point of diminishing returns for this group and that a
discussion focussing mostly on the interpretation of Constitutional
mechanics would be by and large off topic here. I was attempting to be
considerate, not evasive. I'll take it as far as you like (within the
bounds of civility) via e-mail.

> I don't think, though,
>that you should get off the hook so easily for your amazing--and
>unsupportable assault on free speech, to wit:
>
>> nor do YOU get to tell them that they are poor benighted fools
>> who should agree with YOUR views on civil liberties. To assert
>> otherwise is fascism, authoritarianism, dictatorship, pick one.
>
>I'd appreciate it if you would defend, retract or "explain" why
>I don't get to tell ANYONE that they should agree with my views
>of civil liberties.  This is the third time I've addressed your
>curious statement.  Please explain yourself.

Glad to explain it. I used "tell" in the sense of compel, not in the sense
of expressing one's opinion. "Joe told us what to do" is different from
"Joe expressed his opinion of what we should do" in the sense I used it.

Thanks for asking;
David

At 12:23 PM -0700 7/20/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

>
>On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:
>
>> Glad to explain it. I used "tell" in the sense of compel, not
>> in the sense of expressing one's opinion. "Joe told us what to
>> do" is different from "Joe expressed his opinion of what we
>> should do" in the sense I used it.
>
>Really?  But you wrote:
>
>>> nor do YOU get to tell them that they are poor benighted fools
>>> who should agree with YOUR views on civil liberties. To assert
>>> otherwise is fascism, authoritarianism, dictatorship, pick one.
>
>Oh, I see, "tell," "should" and "assert" REALLY mean compel.  And
>what, exactly, would I, the "teller" be compelling them to do?  I
>now understand how you are able to win so many debates.  I guess
>I'd just better give up and take THE PLEDGE, you're just too sly
>for me.

 My use of "assert" in the above paragraph is quite different. "Tell"
applies to the act I'm discussing. "assert" refers to your comment about
the act. As for your complaint about "should", it and tell are consistent
with my meaning which was, to be more precise:

Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition:

"tell...1. count, enumerate; 2. to relate in detail, narrate, give
utterance to;
3. to make known, divulge, reveal; 4. to report to, inform; 5. order,
direct; 6. to find out by observing, recognize.

I used meaning 5 in the comment you asked about.

As to your tone and subsequent remarks, this conversation is now closed.
You may have the last word. To be sure I don't inadvertently continue it
with you,...

Plonk!

David

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:

> Glad to explain it. I used "tell" in the sense of compel, not
> in the sense of expressing one's opinion. "Joe told us what to
> do" is different from "Joe expressed his opinion of what we
> should do" in the sense I used it.

Really?  But you wrote:

>> nor do YOU get to tell them that they are poor benighted fools
>> who should agree with YOUR views on civil liberties. To assert
>> otherwise is fascism, authoritarianism, dictatorship, pick one.

Oh, I see, "tell," "should" and "assert" REALLY mean compel.  And
what, exactly, would I, the "teller" be compelling them to do?  I 
now understand how you are able to win so many debates.  I guess
I'd just better give up and take THE PLEDGE, you're just too sly
for me.

Sorry Perry, you were right.


 S a n d y

P.S.	For those of you who choose to suffer Sternlight,
	I leave you with this little quote from Lewis Caroll.
	You might find it useful to cite when jousting with
	our sophistic friend:

		   "When /I/ use a word," Humpty Dumpty
		said, in rather a scornful tone, "it
		means just what I choose it to mean--
		neither more nor less."
		   "The question is," said Alice, 
		whether you /can/ make words mean so
		many different things."
		   "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty,
		"which is to be master--that's all."

And now back to David Sternlight for what he really wants, the
Last Word.  :-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote:
> 
> Allow the government to think that we think it has the right to give
> us their permission and we've lost everything.

Unfortunately, I am involved n a business, and what is acceptable
or humiliating for free individuals is fiercely practical, not
philosophical.  Quite in particular: my president solicits
the best legal advice he can get, and decides whether or not
he, himself, wants to go to jail, and what the risk of that is.
"Free" takes on a whole new meaning.  I cannot appeal to his sense
of how severe the risks are.

> Exporting crypto-systems and killing people is comparing apples
> and hand grenades.  Please come up with a relevant analogy.

You missed the point.  Right now the government is in the midst
of a policy review.  Your inclination to view that policy as
irrlevant simply doesn't matter.  Proving to them that a more
tolerant policy would not be in their interest is not in our
interest.

Screw with this system and I can bet how the policy review
will come out.


> 1)  Please don't chastise individuals who take direct action and use
> civil disobediance as a measure to change bad laws and policies (ie by
> making your companies software available internationally).

Fine.  Go there, do that.  Please don't use our mechanism as
an integral part.  Once you have the data, there are all sorts
of ways you can exercise considerable civil disobedience completely
on your own without involving our mechanism.
 
> 2)  Please don't misuse the information you gain by logging all your
> network traffic.

We log everything having to do with the US downloads.  I'm not
involved in the eleventy-skillion other net connections which
come in here.  
 
> I agree mostly.  I would rephrase, however, to say: In addition to
> attacking odd pieces of enforcement, participate in the debate over
> the regulations themselves.  

You may or may not have noticed, but our president has testified,
effectively, in Washington several times.  We participate in 
"public" (means govt) debate on this heavily.  We are engaged.

> Besides, contrary to your gist, this
> is probably one of the most prominent pieces of enforcement, and
> therefore a very logical candidate for attack.

Like I said, if you want to attack, please attack without dragging 
our mechanism into it.  Allow companies to provide you the data 
while you mount your attack.  You can be more effective.  You'll
have more tools.  More will be out there.  More of you will
have access to something to be disobedient with.

My very personal opinion: I loathe giving out my phone number
to anonymous corporate entities.  I do it from time to time, but
never without a bristle.  I would prefer if we weren't asking
for it, but I'm engaged in an opitimization exercise, or you
might look at it as minimization of evil.  Whatever.

--
Tom Paquin            Netscape Communications Corp
about:paquin

At 12:34 PM -0700 7/20/96, Adam Shostack wrote:
>	Don't screw with the system, and I can bet how the policy
>review will come out.
>
>	We just had a policy review; the National Academy of Sciences
>had a very prestigious group do a review of our Cryptographic Policy.
>It suggested liberalization.
>
>	Clearly, someone didn't like that, so the Powers That Be are
>doing another policy review in the hopes of getting a review that they
>like.  If they don't get something they like, there will be another
>policy review, chaired by Loius Freeh, and taking testimony from such
>prestigious cryptographers as Dr. Denning.

This is not a technocracy, and the NAS is not a government policy review
body but an advisory one.

Having said that, your cynicism is probably well founded. :-)

David

sameer wrote:

>         What's the big deal here? 

Obviously, I'm tired and should have shut up long ago.

BTW the "pick.cgi" renaming stuff should be fixed now.
Thanks for the prods.

--
Tom Paquin            Netscape Communications Corp
about:paquin

> My very personal opinion: I loathe giving out my phone number
> to anonymous corporate entities.  I do it from time to time, but
> never without a bristle.  I would prefer if we weren't asking
> for it, but I'm engaged in an opitimization exercise, or you
> might look at it as minimization of evil.  Whatever.

	What's the big deal here? I gave netscape my work number, my
work address when I downloaded the us netscape. Give them some number
that isn't private.

	sheesh. i criticized netscape for not doing the
export-controlled download in the past, and now they are doing
it. they deserve to be congratulated. They're doing good things for
the state of security on the net.

-- 
Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-986-8770
Community ConneXion, Inc.			FAX:     510-986-8777
The Internet Privacy Provider
http://www.c2.net/				sameer@c2.net

Don't screw with the system, and I can bet how the policy
review will come out.

	We just had a policy review; the National Academy of Sciences
had a very prestigious group do a review of our Cryptographic Policy.
It suggested liberalization.

	Clearly, someone didn't like that, so the Powers That Be are
doing another policy review in the hopes of getting a review that they
like.  If they don't get something they like, there will be another
policy review, chaired by Loius Freeh, and taking testimony from such
prestigious cryptographers as Dr. Denning.

Adam


Tom Paquin wrote:

| > Exporting crypto-systems and killing people is comparing apples
| > and hand grenades.  Please come up with a relevant analogy.
| 
| You missed the point.  Right now the government is in the midst
| of a policy review.  Your inclination to view that policy as
| irrlevant simply doesn't matter.  Proving to them that a more
| tolerant policy would not be in their interest is not in our
| interest.
| 
| Screw with this system and I can bet how the policy review
| will come out.


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