At 07:00 PM 7/23/96 +0000, The Deviant wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
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.?
Excellent point. There's a difference (or, at least, there had BETTER BE a difference!) between following the laws and "doing everything the government wants, exactly the way it wants." It would be interesting to see the specific explanation which was given Netscape as to why they were required (if, indeed, they were required...) to use a specific system. It seems to me that a far more productive stance by Netscape would have been to say to the State Department, "We're going to put this software on the 'net. We're happy to put in any precautions which are SPECIFICALLY required under law and/or ITAR. However, we insist that you document the fact that they are required, with full and complete legal explanations for your assertions. Moreover, we insist that you explain why this position is consistent with MIT's posting of PGP." At the very least, this would have set the government's position WRT ITAR in stone, Part of the reason the governemnt has gotten so much 'mileage' out of ITAR is the fact that they morph it to do whatever they want, whenever they want. The best way to fight this is to tie down their position. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com