From: Tom Paquin <paquin@netscape.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:54:22 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Netscape download requirements
In-Reply-To: <199607160905.FAA26831@mailserver1.tiac.net>
Message-ID: <31EEDA69.31D8@netscape.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Horse's mouth here, or mostly.  

First, the Weinsteins are right on the money in almost 
everything they say, so I won't repeat them.

Second, I don't get to read this group much, so an apology for
post-n-dash. Jeff and Tom W keep me informed, however, so
here're some thoughts.

> 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.

> so why not do a 'whois netscape.com'
> and enter the Netscape Communications Corps. data ? Afterall whois
> to know ....

Anonymous wrote:
> 
> Tim you may use this as entry data:

There are ways to spoof this but without serious IP spoofing and
SSL hacking you'll leave a trail which could be followed if
someone wanted to. I have no idea what the probabilities of an
investigation are, but looking at the data we log, every lie 
we've received would be trivially tracked down if a motivated 
government agency came along. There isn't much about your 
connections that we don't log.

If you all hack us, one of three things will happen:
(1) someone will make us stop doing this
(2) someone will slow it down more by forcing me to check more
 -or-
(3) they'll let us stay up so they can (try to) come get you

I'd bet on the first.  Why screw with this?  We worked hard
to make this possible and you want to ruin it.  Sheesh.

"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....."

sameer wrote:
> 
> Have you considered selling this export verification system?

No.  I don't have redistribution rights to all of it.  If
someone were really interested, I'd talk to them, but the
government would probably need to be told before any tech transfer
took place, I'd bet.

Also, our govt permission is pretty specialized; I don't think
anyone can just go use it unless they are willing to brave those
untested waters I keep getting reminded about.

> Have you heard any reports of anyone successfully downloading it
> period?  Netscape always times out in the middle of a download.  I
> think the server is so overloaded that it's actually impossible to
> download the software.

Yeah, we're getting clobbered.  We're working on it.  Lots
of people are making it, though.  The site management guys
know about the problem and are scurrying, anyway.

> I sure wish there were an ftp site overseas somewhere, then I could
> actually get the damned thing.

If you get NoCookie:  please check your system clock.  I'm hoping
that's most people's problems (those who don't have cookies
disabled or r/o).
 
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 
usefulness of the laws in place, I think the guys in ODTC had 
their public service hats on very firmly the day they said OK to 
us.  It would have been quite easy for them to maintain the old 
line but they wanted, in their way, to do the public a service.  
This is something I would like more of in Washington. This is the 
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.


--
Tom Paquin            Netscape Communications Corp
about:paquin