At 15:27 7/20/96, Tom Weinstein wrote: [Site distributing Netscape US elided. Thanks Alex. There was no wait.]
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.
I doubt that. PGP has been distributed for years with less safeguards than Netscape. It is available on more free-world sites than Netscape US. This did not prompt the powers that be to force MIT to take down their site. The feds know that it is impossible to prevent software that is available on the net from being exported. Why would they harass Netscape once the inevitable happens? -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.
Lucky Green wrote:
At 15:27 7/20/96, Tom Weinstein wrote:
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.
I doubt that. PGP has been distributed for years with less safeguards than Netscape. It is available on more free-world sites than Netscape US. This did not prompt the powers that be to force MIT to take down their site. The feds know that it is impossible to prevent software that is available on the net from being exported. Why would they harass Netscape once the inevitable happens?
Well, for starters, the genius who put it out there put out a beta, which has an expiration date, instead of waiting for the final release. Secondly, millions of people don't use PGP. Also, notice the simple verification system MIT was allowed to use, and the complex one we're required to use. -- 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 Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 13:27:45 -0700 From: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com> To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: Netscape
Lucky Green wrote:
At 15:27 7/20/96, Tom Weinstein wrote:
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.
I doubt that. PGP has been distributed for years with less safeguards than Netscape. It is available on more free-world sites than Netscape US. This did not prompt the powers that be to force MIT to take down their site. The feds know that it is impossible to prevent software that is available on the net from being exported. Why would they harass Netscape once the inevitable happens?
Well, for starters, the genius who put it out there put out a beta, which has an expiration date, instead of waiting for the final release. Secondly, millions of people don't use PGP.
Hrmm.. a few glimpses at a hex->machine code chart and a simple hex editor should get past _that_ now shouldn't it?
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.?
-- You should only break rules of style if you can | Tom Weinstein coherently explain what you gain by so doing. | tomw@netscape.com
Style is standing up for what you beleive in. Netscape obviously has none, or they would be activly fighting the ITAR. --Deviant Whatever occurs from love is always beyond good and evil. -- Friedrich Nietzsche -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMfUhSDAJap8fyDMVAQFZmAf+JaD4Z5wmt6qkyvJK1nhg8xjZF4z0LoGi AyhFZ8sAZCgcu65YVcH9NnwXgJCGdq/OK2eLZlydM8w/tnIZJtsgxnX5rf8gb7a2 zgC8G4lr8OPKZPDP/85z8au/sM5wkUZ/sR9w+yTBn+UOmLH9sl+1r07rzMku39Zj LTrCp6B9I0TjaTQjiZyUaiClp67nJxobGWPDByTMMqJeN34V79ikRPBTI/FzcxD9 mk+TwyIVrHqFC117o2X4GuJbDPPqIWRBNDM1MpWmdECOOGEpkPydnJxmub+IaeBu WN2wPNzE2m9FVHQ0YVIScIt4jw2t4rr46BxfeDT+UJPIkvvhq6+0Ww== =NKO0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The Deviant wrote:
You should only break rules of style if you can | Tom Weinstein coherently explain what you gain by so doing. | tomw@netscape.com
Style is standing up for what you beleive in. Netscape obviously has none, or they would be activly fighting the ITAR.
Anyone who believes that Netscape is not actively fighting ITAR is a fool. -- You should only break rules of style if you can | Tom Weinstein coherently explain what you gain by so doing. | tomw@netscape.com
shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green) writes:
At 15:27 7/20/96, Tom Weinstein wrote:
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.
I doubt that. PGP has been distributed for years with less safeguards than Netscape. It is available on more free-world sites than Netscape US. This did not prompt the powers that be to force MIT to take down their site. ...
I must agree with Lucky. I am quite sure that even if Netscape was not begin distributed over the net, copies would still be uploaded to international sites by folks practicing Civil disobedience. Only they'd have to wait to get the release from a store or some other source. If you think the net distribution channel is in danger, consider these suggestions. The basic idea is to provide plausible denyability that the net site was the source of the "leak". Offer to send the latest version on floppy to US addresses of the first 100 people who request them. I only suggest 100 to keep your costs down. But any decent sized number would do. I got my copy bundled with my ISP software. So make sure your ISP and other redistributers have their copies a few days before you make it available on the net. Then new ISP accounts will start getting copies before the net copies become available. This may not work as well for beta's, but I'm sure other approaches along these lines would work too. Of course, it make sense to make sure the binaries used in each of these channels are indistinguishable. Ted Anderson
At 5:09 PM -0700 7/22/96, Ted Anderson wrote:
shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green) writes:
At 15:27 7/20/96, Tom Weinstein wrote:
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.
I doubt that. PGP has been distributed for years with less safeguards than Netscape. It is available on more free-world sites than Netscape US. This did not prompt the powers that be to force MIT to take down their site. ...
I must agree with Lucky. I am quite sure that even if Netscape was not begin distributed over the net, copies would still be uploaded to international sites by folks practicing Civil disobedience.
To call simple lawbreaking by cowards working in secret "civil disobedience" is to defame the name of Gandhi, King, and all the legitimate protesters of modern history. Civil disobedience must be seen publicly, and must be done by observable individuals. Masked men throwing stink bombs is not civil disobedience--it's hooliganism. David
David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> writes:
I must agree with Lucky. I am quite sure that even if Netscape was not begin distributed over the net, copies would still be uploaded to international sites by folks practicing Civil disobedience.
To call simple lawbreaking by cowards working in secret "civil disobedience" is to defame the name of Gandhi, King, and all the legitimate protesters of modern history. Civil disobedience must be seen publicly, and must be done by observable individuals. Masked men throwing stink bombs is not civil disobedience--it's hooliganism.
As you can clearly see I did *not* suggest that the software needed to be uploaded anonymously. I agree that public disobedience has a much large impact than private disobedience, but I think the value of private disobedience is still positive. Uploading critical software which computer users can access accross the globe, important as it is, is not an ideal method of practicing (or mispracticing if you prefer) Civil Disobedience. The problem is that only a single copy only needs to be uploaded and only one person really gets "credit" for the upload. Better is something like Vince Cate's "Arms Trafficker" page: http://online.offshore.com.ai/arms-trafficker/ I am there at #172 striking a tiny but not invisible blow for freedom. 172 Mon May 6 7:56:39 1996 Ted Anderson <ota+@transarc.com> user-168-121-79-76.dialup.mindspring.com 168.121.79.76 Ted Anderson
participants (5)
-
David Sternlight -
shamrock＠netcom.com -
Ted Anderson -
The Deviant -
Tom Weinstein