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
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
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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. :-) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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:
"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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, David Sternlight 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
At 1:47 AM -0700 7/19/96, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote: 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
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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
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
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
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
participants (8)
-
Adam Shostack -
Cerridwyn Llewyellyn -
David Sternlight -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
sameer -
Sandy Sandfort -
snow -
Tom Paquin