From: Cerridwyn Llewyellyn <ceridwyn@wolfenet.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 20:23:51 +0800
To: paquin@netscape.com
Subject: Re: Netscape download requirements
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960719084701.006a8aac@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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//