Let's Say "No!" to Single, World Versions of Software

It is imperative that Netscape, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and the other players be pressured/urged/cajoled to commit to introducing strong, unescrowed crypto for the *domestic* versions, even if not for export versions. I believe several signs are pointing to jockeying in the U.S. to get the major players in software to introduce "one version" programs with key escrow built in. While the avowed intent will be to stop _export_ of unescrowed strong crypto, such a "one version" (interoperable) strategy would mean that key escrow is the de facto situation within the United States. Several months back, during the flap over Netscape founder Jim Clarke's statements about the needs for key escrow, one result was that Netscape acknowledged that even if it had to have *two* versions, a domestic version and an export version, it would not put key escrow or other GAK versions into U.S . releases. It bears repeating, though we all know this: There are no restrictions whatsoever on crypto use in the United States. (The restrictions on airwave use of codes are more complicated to analyze, and don't effect speech, writing, normal communications, etc.) Not compromising on what is available to U.S. users is critical. (Of course, we all know that what is widely available to U.S. users will quickly become available in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere. But this is no reason, formally, to compromise on basic freedoms within the U.S.) So, I urge you, be prepared to attack any of the major software vendors who offer any "one version" solutions which limit the strength of crypto available to the U.S. customers in the name of offering a single, world, exportable version. Without this ITAR hook, the government is currently powerless to control crypto domestically. (Many believe such restrictions would be dismissed on First Amendment grounds, as restrictions on the form of speech. Of course, many also believe the ITARs will eventually be found to be unconstitutional, at least the parts dealilng with software, technical articles, speech, etc.) One of the lines of my ever-expanding .sig has been "Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!" I added this during the Lotus Notes flap, where Lotus honcho Ray Ozzie was proposing his "40 + 24" solution, where Lotus would give 24 bits of the 64-bit key to the government. When I coined the logo "Big Brother Inside," the Cypherpunks meeting after Clipper was announced in '93, it was this kind of cozy relationship between industry and government I was mainly commenting on. The NSA and FBI know that recruiting Netscape, Microsoft, Novell, Lotus, and others to implement GAK in their stupendously popular software products is the single best way to control the spread of strong crypto. I say we make it clear that this will not fly for U.S. versions! What kind of GAK gets built into products intended to be exported to Albania and Iran is of little relevance here in the U.S., where no laws give the government permission to dictate what is in a program, or how long a key is, or whether master keys have been duly deposited with the secret police. Let's remind people of this. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May wrote:
It is imperative that Netscape, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and the other players be pressured/urged/cajoled to commit to introducing strong, unescrowed crypto for the *domestic* versions, even if not for export versions.
I'm surprised that you include Netscape in this list of companies. We're already distributing strong unescrowed crypto in domestic version of our products, and we will continue to do so. What do you think we have to be pressured into doing?
I believe several signs are pointing to jockeying in the U.S. to get the major players in software to introduce "one version" programs with key escrow built in. While the avowed intent will be to stop _export_ of unescrowed strong crypto, such a "one version" (interoperable) strategy would mean that key escrow is the de facto situation within the United States.
We won't do this. Our domestic version will always contain the strongest crypto we can provide. -- 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 Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
We won't do this. Our domestic version will always contain the strongest crypto we can provide.
Then what is the concern about anonymous arms-traffickers uploading the strong crypto version to foreign FTP sites? I recall you saying that the State Department might revoke Netscape's "permission" to provide a domestic version if it was exported. - -- Mark PGP encrypted mail prefered Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348 http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMf+5XLZc+sv5siulAQGtCAQApSlizPMEOk5pz2FUuHgJC+VTDzBCzmfi zGPFdRCZMFTqovBA1+IoFFtUAbJzejfo+fglgt/tfV6nkxj8ThUwtXj1dFlFbrat 7l0Citoo3J7WUS0Y95SLh8EWb2UKoJGfyHkCz5RGt4PMaQSddXnGk2MppE1giCxm jmMqleiOuVU= =k7vj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 5:16 PM -0400 7/31/96, Tom Weinstein wrote:
The only thing they can revoke is their permission to provide it for download over the internet. They can't revoke our permission to sell it in stores or via snail mail.
Which, of course, would kill your business. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

Mark M. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
We won't do this. Our domestic version will always contain the strongest crypto we can provide.
Then what is the concern about anonymous arms-traffickers uploading the strong crypto version to foreign FTP sites? I recall you saying that the State Department might revoke Netscape's "permission" to provide a domestic version if it was exported.
The only thing they can revoke is their permission to provide it for download over the internet. They can't revoke our permission to sell it in stores or via snail mail. -- You should only break rules of style if you can | Tom Weinstein coherently explain what you gain by so doing. | tomw@netscape.com

The only thing they can revoke is their permission to provide it for download over the internet. They can't revoke our permission to sell it in stores or via snail mail.
Where do you get this idea? Got an inside track into the minds of the supreme court? -- Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 Community ConneXion, Inc. FAX: 510-986-8777 The Internet Privacy Provider http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net

sameer wrote:
The only thing they can revoke is their permission to provide it for download over the internet. They can't revoke our permission to sell it in stores or via snail mail.
Where do you get this idea? Got an inside track into the minds of the supreme court?
The "they" mentioned above is the State Department. Congress can try to do anything. -- You should only break rules of style if you can | Tom Weinstein coherently explain what you gain by so doing. | tomw@netscape.com

Tom Weinstein writes: : Mark M. wrote: : > On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote: : > : >> We won't do this. Our domestic version will always contain the : >> strongest crypto we can provide. : > : > Then what is the concern about anonymous arms-traffickers uploading : > the strong crypto version to foreign FTP sites? I recall you saying : > that the State Department might revoke Netscape's "permission" to : > provide a domestic version if it was exported. : : The only thing they can revoke is their permission to provide it for : download over the internet. They can't revoke our permission to sell : it in stores or via snail mail. Why can't they? What steps do you take to make sure that the people you sell it to aren't--gasp--foreign persons? -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu

Peter D. Junger wrote:
Tom Weinstein writes:
: The only thing they can revoke is their permission to provide it for : download over the internet. They can't revoke our permission to : sell it in stores or via snail mail.
Why can't they? What steps do you take to make sure that the people you sell it to aren't--gasp--foreign persons?
We only ship the domestic version to addresses inside the US. They State Department seems to think this is sufficient. Of course, a foreign person can always fly here and pick up a copy at Fry's, but that's not our problem. -- You should only break rules of style if you can | Tom Weinstein coherently explain what you gain by so doing. | tomw@netscape.com

Tom Weinstein writes:
We only ship the domestic version to addresses inside the US. They State Department seems to think this is sufficient. Of course, a foreign person can always fly here and pick up a copy at Fry's, but that's not our problem.
Or just walk out of a Mission, and buy one on K Street. But it's easier to just get an account on an ISP. I recall several chats with a .nl UN Mission Staffer. He was on Panix or PSI or such. Maybe we should require proof of citizenship before granting a license to use IP. (The irony was, he did not realize the Vienna Convention covered his rented residence as well as the Mission...) -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
participants (7)
-
David Lesher
-
Mark M.
-
Peter D. Junger
-
Robert Hettinga
-
sameer
-
tcmay@got.net
-
Tom Weinstein