Re: Netscape

Rich Graves wrote:
>[on hacktic]
>> netscape-fts2-hp10.tar.gz	Fast Track Server 2.0 for HPUX10
>> netscape-fts2-nt.exe		Fast Track Server 2.0 for WinNT
>> netscape-hpus-30b5.tar.gz	Navigator 3.0b5 for HP-UX
>> netscape-linux-30b5.tar.gz	Navigator 3.0b5 for Linux
>> netscape-ssl30-src.tar.gz	SSL 3.0 source code
>> netscape32us-30b5.exe	Navigator 3.0b5 for Win95/NT
>
>And thus it begins... I think it's a bad idea to provoke the TLAs
>like this, but I suppose it's inevitable.

Why is it a bad idea? If you don't do it, you support the ITAR
by your lack of action! Every day that you don't export strong
crypto you assist the enemy.

>(But doesn't anyone use Macs or Suns?)

Mac download didn't work yesterday. The download page doesn't
say if the Solaris versions are for Sparc or Intel (they are
different and incompatible binaries, aren't they?).

>> By the way, is it possible to get a certificate for the
>> Fast Track 128 bit servers outside of north america?
>
>Why would you want one when the source for Apache-SSL is available?

Just for fun. To show the TLAs what complete morons they are...

>Besides, it's a Serious Copyright Violation, said with minimal
irony. This whole thing isn't Netscape's fault; in fact, they're
>doing their best to be the good guys. 

Do you Seriously Believe that Netscape would prefer foreigners
to develop and use competing products? Of course not. They are
probably secretly applauding the brave exporters.

At 3:27 PM -0700 7/20/96, Tom Weinstein wrote:

>>> And thus it begins... I think it's a bad idea to provoke the TLAs
>>> like this, but I suppose it's inevitable.
>>
>> Why is it a bad idea? If you don't do it, you support the ITAR
>> by your lack of action! Every day that you don't export strong
>> crypto you assist the enemy.
>
>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.

Remind anyone of the old aphorism "I will fight to the death the right to
say it. Your death."?

David

Anonymous wrote:
> 
> Rich Graves wrote:
>> [on hacktic]
>>> netscape-fts2-hp10.tar.gz    Fast Track Server 2.0 for HPUX10
>>> netscape-fts2-nt.exe         Fast Track Server 2.0 for WinNT
>>> netscape-hpus-30b5.tar.gz    Navigator 3.0b5 for HP-UX
>>> netscape-linux-30b5.tar.gz   Navigator 3.0b5 for Linux
>>> netscape-ssl30-src.tar.gz    SSL 3.0 source code
>>> netscape32us-30b5.exe        Navigator 3.0b5 for Win95/NT
>>
>> And thus it begins... I think it's a bad idea to provoke the TLAs
>> like this, but I suppose it's inevitable.
> 
> Why is it a bad idea? If you don't do it, you support the ITAR
> by your lack of action! Every day that you don't export strong
> crypto you assist the enemy.

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.

As for your claim that not breaking the law supports it, I must remind
you that Jim Barksdale has testified before congress on several
occasions about how braindead ITAR is.  Just because we don't fight it
the way you want us to doesn't mean we support it.

>> (But doesn't anyone use Macs or Suns?)
> 
> Mac download didn't work yesterday. The download page doesn't
> say if the Solaris versions are for Sparc or Intel (they are
> different and incompatible binaries, aren't they?).

A lot of people have been downloading the Mac version.  What was the
problem you were having?  If you're not seeing the NoCookie problem,
please try again.  I think we've got most of the other problems licked.
The Solaris versions are for Sparc.

>> Besides, it's a Serious Copyright Violation, said with minimal
>> irony. This whole thing isn't Netscape's fault; in fact, they're
>> doing their best to be the good guys.
> 
> Do you Seriously Believe that Netscape would prefer foreigners
> to develop and use competing products? Of course not. They are
> probably secretly applauding the brave exporters.

You are wrong.  We are worried that our permission to provide these
products will be withdrawn.  If we could do it legally, we'd let anyone
download it who wants it.  But we can't.

-- 
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 Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:

> Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
> believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?

The government has yet to enforce ITAR.  The only thing they have been doing
is threatening companies who make products with strong crypto.  If anyone was
ever actually put on trial for a violation of ITAR, it would almost certainly
be found to be unconstitutional.

- -- Mark

PGP encrypted mail prefered
Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/  


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMfGfu7Zc+sv5siulAQGCCgP+JApL6HQ31ZbG2j/FDmc7LJMjszd6ZcA1
GZDWMzPbI+JNt4zooUsYR9uJoNWz3NppdtRc7y6jp6etddTq+le99EDexujc2DSn
s3rq0NSaK0VwZIee0GWhaWahw+URxDNU4A5gWsd/oz3UhVA9R/ltIwtwwE2ctxgi
Iv9M/1Ftuoc=
=rCQr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Mark M." writes:
> > Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
> > believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?
> 
> The government has yet to enforce ITAR.

You are misinformed.

Perry

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

On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Mark M. wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
> 
> > Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
> > believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?
> 
> The government has yet to enforce ITAR.  The only thing they have been doing
> is threatening companies who make products with strong crypto.  If anyone was
> ever actually put on trial for a violation of ITAR, it would almost certainly
> be found to be unconstitutional.

So do it. None of this anonymous bullshit, or trying to drag Netscape into
it. 

I'd donate whatever I could to a Cypherpunk Legal Defense Fund. We only need
one volunteer with a lot of time on his/her hands. 

- -rich

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

iQBVAwUBMfHPwpNcNyVVy0jxAQEckQH/UfScMaluCISTxIQeFEGysHlJ0bdEirJS
XVnuXDA/CPlD7TtCHBOUCcoCn/bCq5rMngLkbtKvDMHCgpRiADTpuA==
=BWaW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Rich Graves wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Mark M. wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
> > > Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
> > > believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?
> > The government has yet to enforce ITAR.  The only thing they have been doing
> > is threatening companies who make products with strong crypto.  If anyone was
> > ever actually put on trial for a violation of ITAR, it would almost certainly
> So do it. None of this anonymous bullshit, or trying to drag Netscape into
> it. 
> I'd donate whatever I could to a Cypherpunk Legal Defense Fund. We only need
> one volunteer with a lot of time on his/her hands. 

     Put up enough money to defend me and tell me how I can get arrested. 

     I'm not doing a lot at the moment, and I wouldn't mind getting my 15 
minutes of fame at this point. 

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

Rich Graves writes:

: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
: 
: On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Mark M. wrote:
: > On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
: > 
: > > Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
: > > believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?
: > 
: > The government has yet to enforce ITAR.  The only thing they have been doin
: g
: > is threatening companies who make products with strong crypto.  If anyone w
: as
: > ever actually put on trial for a violation of ITAR, it would almost certain
: ly
: > be found to be unconstitutional.
: 
: So do it. None of this anonymous bullshit, or trying to drag Netscape into
: it. 
: 
: I'd donate whatever I could to a Cypherpunk Legal Defense Fund. We only need
: one volunteer with a lot of time on his/her hands. 
: 

Fortunately one does not have to be prosecuted to test the
constitutionality of the ITAR as they apply to cryptography: the
Bernstein and Karn cases have already been brought and at least one
other is in the pipeline.  But no one seems to be setting up a Legal
Attack Fund to support such litigation.  Perhaps some of those active on
the cypherpunks list would be interested in creating and supporting such
a fund.  One would hope that those corporate interests who keep
complaining about how the ITAR cut into their potential profits would be
willing to contribute.

--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
Internet:  junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu    junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu