Re: Netscape

At 03:27 PM 7/20/96 -0700, Tom Weinstein wrote:
> Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
> believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR? 

Yes:  

Widespread politically motivated disobedience forces
the state to either demonize the disobedient, (as with drug users)
or give up enforcement.  This is a standard and effective method
of forcing the repeal of laws, a method which has had a long record
of success for several hundred years.

The states cohesion derives from its legitimacy, and threats to
legitimacy and cohesion are treated very seriously by government
officials.

Threatening the states legitimacy is arguably more effective in 
influencing government behavior than blowing up federal office
buildings.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              				|  
We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind	|  
of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the	|  
arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com

James A. Donald wrote:
> 
> At 03:27 PM 7/20/96 -0700, Tom Weinstein wrote:
> > Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
> > believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?
> 
> Yes:
> 
> Widespread politically motivated disobedience forces
> the state to either demonize the disobedient, (as with drug users)
> or give up enforcement.  This is a standard and effective method
> of forcing the repeal of laws, a method which has had a long record
> of success for several hundred years.

A handful of cyperpunks hardly constitutes "widespread polititcally
motivated disobedience".  In any case, the demonization has already
begun; they point their fingers at the four horsemen of the internet
at every oportunity.

What I object to is anonymous activists who perform acts at no risk to
themselves which make it harder for those of us who are trying to bring
strong crypto to everyone.

> The states cohesion derives from its legitimacy, and threats to
> legitimacy and cohesion are treated very seriously by government
> officials.
> 
> Threatening the states legitimacy is arguably more effective in
> influencing government behavior than blowing up federal office
> buildings.

The first step is to create at least a strong minority.  A handful of
cypherpunks can be largely ignored.  We have to get the general
public using and educated about strong crypto before civil disobedience
will mean anything.

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

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

C'punks,

On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:

> What I object to is anonymous activists who perform acts at no risk to
> themselves which make it harder for those of us who are trying to bring
> strong crypto to everyone.

Personally, I think it was a good idea for the American Colonists
to shoot at the British from behind rocks and trees.  As Tom
pointed out in his post, there are relatively few Cypherpunks.
We all do what we can, in whatever way best suits are temprament,
talents and acceptible risk level.  There is no single tao; there 
are many paths.  For Netscape, dialog and negotiations may be the 
best way to promote privacy, for Zimmermann, it was guerilla 
programming, for others it might be high-tech monkey-wrenching.  
To each his own.  As far as I can see, they are all trying to 
bring strong crypto to everyone.


 S a n d y

P.S.	I want to make it clear that I have the greatest
	respect for Tom and Netscape's contributions in
	support of strong crypto.  

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

Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
> 
>> What I object to is anonymous activists who perform acts at no risk
>> to themselves which make it harder for those of us who are trying to
>> bring strong crypto to everyone.
> 
> Personally, I think it was a good idea for the American Colonists
> to shoot at the British from behind rocks and trees.  As Tom
> pointed out in his post, there are relatively few Cypherpunks.
> We all do what we can, in whatever way best suits are temprament,
> talents and acceptible risk level.  There is no single tao; there
> are many paths.  For Netscape, dialog and negotiations may be the
> best way to promote privacy, for Zimmermann, it was guerilla
> programming, for others it might be high-tech monkey-wrenching.
> To each his own.  As far as I can see, they are all trying to
> bring strong crypto to everyone.

I agree with you 100%.  Note that while the American Colonists were
shooting at the British, they didn't take their friends and pin them to
trees as decoys.

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

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

C'punks,

On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:

> I agree with you 100%.  Note that while the American Colonists were
> shooting at the British, they didn't take their friends and pin them to
> trees as decoys.

I think the analogy breaks down here.  No one is using anyone
else as a decoy.  Those of us who are activists for strong
crypto, do so of our own free will.  Nobody is forcing us to 
stand up and draw fire.  Anyway, I don't think our cypher-snipers 
are going to stop, just because we ask them to.  So it's a moot 
issue.  If you can't take the heat...


 S a n d y

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

At 7:54 PM -0700 7/21/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

>Personally, I think it was a good idea for the American Colonists
>to shoot at the British from behind rocks and trees.  As Tom
>pointed out in his post, there are relatively few Cypherpunks.
>We all do what we can, in whatever way best suits are temprament,
>talents and acceptible risk level.  There is no single tao; there
>are many paths.  For Netscape, dialog and negotiations may be the
>best way to promote privacy, for Zimmermann, it was guerilla
>programming, for others it might be high-tech monkey-wrenching.
>To each his own.  As far as I can see, they are all trying to
>bring strong crypto to everyone.

If monkeywrenchers allege that they are trying to "help" us, they are
lying. Netscape is bringing strong crypto to most US people.
Monkeywrenchers are saying 'if everyone can't have it, nobody can' if they
monkey-wrench Netscape's net downloading permission from the government.
Since it's pretty unlikely their monkeywrenching will result in the repeal
of ITAR, they are little different from the spoiled brats who, when told
they can't keep another child's candy, throw it in the dirt and stamp on it
so nobody can have it.

I read Tim May's suggestions, and while he is sincere and trying to be
helpful, I use strong language above because it's time we called things for
what they are instead of politely pussyfooting around them. Monkeywrenchers
are no friends of Cypherpunks. They are the enemy, as surely as is
mandatory key escrow in the US.

David

DS
>I read Tim May's suggestions, and while he is sincere and trying to be
>helpful, I use strong language above because it's time we called things for
>what they are instead of politely pussyfooting around them. Monkeywrenchers
>are no friends of Cypherpunks. They are the enemy, as surely as is
>mandatory key escrow in the US.

wow, after only about a week DS has suddenly grasped the Tao of 
Cypherpunk and discovered the mysterious and elusive distinction of Those 
That Are and Those That Are Not. I'm really impressed. truly only
a great master could accomplish such a feat in such a short time. 
as long as I have been around here, even I do not have such confidence,
so I bow down to my superior <g>

David suggests that Netscape will be royally screwed if the gov't
cracks down on them because of "monkeywrenchers". but quite the
opposite is possible. as TCM fondly points out, sometimes you win
by losing and lose by winning (not necessarily in those words).

by creating a very large, glaring, and visceral
public spectacle of the government cracking down on crypto, the
resulting outcry could be absolutely enormous and resonate throughout
the entire population. it would be a vivid portrayal of what the
government has been doing quietly and secretly for decades, and
perhaps the public might finally understand what is going on.

before on this list I have advocated that we try to bait the government
into confiscating crypto at a border, or stopping a truck full of
microsoft products with "military grade crypto" at the border or 
something-- filming the customs agents with guns raised and have
a voiceover "what's in the truck? not submachine guns. not missles.
but computer disks. and the government feels they are every bit
as deadly".

p.s. personally I think "monkeywrenching" does have its uses at 
times <g>

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> by creating a very large, glaring, and visceral
> public spectacle of the government cracking down on crypto, the
> resulting outcry could be absolutely enormous and resonate throughout
> the entire population. it would be a vivid portrayal of what the
> government has been doing quietly and secretly for decades, and
> perhaps the public might finally understand what is going on.

  I think that it would be more effective to get the US version
of netscape into the hands of as many US citizens as possible.
Taking away our permission to download in the near future after
a few tens of thousands of downloads won't mean near as much as telling
several million people running the US version that they can't
upgrade to the next release and maintain their strong crypto
capabilities.  Once a few million voters have it, it will be
very hard to take it away again.  What i'm hoping for is the
wide distribution of strong crypto in a user friendly package.
Isn't that the heart of cypherpunk ideals?

  I certainly have sympathy for those who want to make a point
by uploading our US software to hacktic and other foreign servers,
but I think that my company will probably have to ask hacktic
and others to remove these copies.

  I'm also curious why these anonymous crusaders did not act
sooner?  The US version has been available for sale in retail
outlets for about a year now.  Was it not worth $50 to make
your point?

	--Jeff

-- 
Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist
Netscape Communication Corporation
jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw
Any opinions expressed above are mine.

At 11:23 AM -0700 7/22/96, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

>by creating a very large, glaring, and visceral
>public spectacle of the government cracking down on crypto, the
>resulting outcry could be absolutely enormous and resonate throughout
>the entire population. it would be a vivid portrayal of what the
>government has been doing quietly and secretly for decades, and
>perhaps the public might finally understand what is going on.

You're living in a dream world, Vladimir. There's no more going to be a
revolution about this than there was under Stalin, and for similar
reasons--when the government says the security of the State is at risk, and
the public sees explosions and deaths, they are going to go along.

All this will accomplish is ruin it for most everyone else. It reveals the
"monkeywrenchers" for the fascists they are.

"Comrades, comes the revolution you'll all eat strawberries and cream."

"But I don't like strawberries and cream."

"Comrades, comes the revolution, you'll ALL eat strawberries and cream."

David

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

On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:

> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 18:38:54 -0700
> From: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com>
> To: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Netscape
> 
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > 
> > At 03:27 PM 7/20/96 -0700, Tom Weinstein wrote:
> > > Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
> > > believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?
> > 
> > Yes:
> > 
> > Widespread politically motivated disobedience forces
> > the state to either demonize the disobedient, (as with drug users)
> > or give up enforcement.  This is a standard and effective method
> > of forcing the repeal of laws, a method which has had a long record
> > of success for several hundred years.
> 
> A handful of cyperpunks hardly constitutes "widespread polititcally
> motivated disobedience".  In any case, the demonization has already
> begun; they point their fingers at the four horsemen of the internet
> at every oportunity.
> 

One might say the same thing about 10 or 20 people throwing shipments of
tea off of boats in boston harbor.

> 
> What I object to is anonymous activists who perform acts at no risk to
> themselves which make it harder for those of us who are trying to bring
> strong crypto to everyone.
> 

Why?  Because they can do it without risk?  The way I see it, if you can
do something that should be done, and you can do it at no risk to
yourself, then its all the better.

> > The states cohesion derives from its legitimacy, and threats to
> > legitimacy and cohesion are treated very seriously by government
> > officials.
> > 
> > Threatening the states legitimacy is arguably more effective in
> > influencing government behavior than blowing up federal office
> > buildings.
> 
> The first step is to create at least a strong minority.  A handful of
> cypherpunks can be largely ignored.  We have to get the general
> public using and educated about strong crypto before civil disobedience
> will mean anything.

Hrmm... I'll agree with that... We need to do something to get ourselves
noticed (and no, I don't mean blowing up the NSA headquarters)

 --Deviant


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

iQEVAwUBMfPPxTAJap8fyDMVAQF6Lwf9Fo3+79zO31nd+CQpLYh0Ptqa0s/T9Fkg
T/sxZhB9qDK0E6qsvNq6MOn10YhBnHtJ2i7R5qyzgBlWLCsmcxT2SoYniRHV590s
6EXlvTyFMyCD1B5uFEdJrgOq9NTq18EEJ2+KxawPJ2OZKrN3XckCIfpZbl5m4GpW
NoLaWtcKOKjGtdJj+em/xbRnczOEJh7BQ733sXQVsOryjjFdXu8EV4oZN8FU0Qat
GNtw6VpzW2dLt2bcLEDXQSQdkIwXfs6+sXzjcGkB9SJoyAQMq20l1+h5YIHcfPiN
alqHzN6YGOy4tILt1O/Xght67DLgRWhUmW3Apo5C2+IOfzqzHdAUMQ==
=RATL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

The Deviant wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
>
>> A handful of cyperpunks hardly constitutes "widespread polititcally
>> motivated disobedience".  In any case, the demonization has already
>> begun; they point their fingers at the four horsemen of the internet
>> at every oportunity.
> 
> One might say the same thing about 10 or 20 people throwing shipments
> of tea off of boats in boston harbor.

Good point.

>> What I object to is anonymous activists who perform acts at no risk
>> to themselves which make it harder for those of us who are trying to
>> bring strong crypto to everyone.
> 
> Why?  Because they can do it without risk?  The way I see it, if you
> can do something that should be done, and you can do it at no risk to
> yourself, then its all the better.

Fine.  Please do it with something you write yourself, not with our
products.

>> The first step is to create at least a strong minority.  A handful of
>> cypherpunks can be largely ignored.  We have to get the general
>> public using and educated about strong crypto before civil
>> disobedience will mean anything.
> 
> Hrmm... I'll agree with that... We need to do something to get
> ourselves noticed (and no, I don't mean blowing up the NSA
> headquarters)

Yes, and that's what we're trying to do.  Get strong crypto in the hands
of as many people as we can.  I can hardly wait until we get S/MIME in.

-- 
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 Sun, 21 Jul 1996, James A. Donald wrote:

> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 08:23:22 -0700
> From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
> To: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com>, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Netscape
> 
> At 03:27 PM 7/20/96 -0700, Tom Weinstein wrote:
> > Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
> > believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR? 
> 
> Yes:  
> 
> Widespread politically motivated disobedience forces
> the state to either demonize the disobedient, (as with drug users)
> or give up enforcement.  This is a standard and effective method
> of forcing the repeal of laws, a method which has had a long record
> of success for several hundred years.
> 
> The states cohesion derives from its legitimacy, and threats to
> legitimacy and cohesion are treated very seriously by government
> officials.
> 
> Threatening the states legitimacy is arguably more effective in 
> influencing government behavior than blowing up federal office
> buildings.

Hrmm... I'm definatly on your side.  _Civil_ Disobediance has been, and
always will be, the most effective way.

 --Deviant


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

iQEVAwUBMfPEwDAJap8fyDMVAQGA1Af7Bymmynm/ocJ+vFr4MQbIOVwfhLrxZw9K
3bG2WzmbdopMXSJ8rXW09ETMOYZOCoM73Kbv16M3MrhytgDIguFxxwqibQfSWzOy
ZOWS8DJS4SL47Y8pE5jK1WAasK7QmWJXS4TsUX1ablIcNNK+LXMqxaWXN/0cLIKE
IhZJ4jV+Sq4+G+4zACOqi0kiIPu+A3YYXlNHR0l6RTmSDFY97qzyGJwOCOPgApGe
YekQz4uLuXDZ6JIq2k1Sgt6M71dQne8u/oBnV9qa1ONNx+q00yP0P4nLLhgKEfvZ
gi3RSoRsFie7xBFrZdUGFP5XwQLtmd1gZc4rfEZ8GSxRxxO0Kq3iAw==
=DfR4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----