From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 05:40:57 +0800
To: The Deviant <tomw@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: Netscape
Message-ID: <199607241752.KAA02103@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 07:00 PM 7/23/96 +0000, The Deviant wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:

>> 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.?


Excellent point.  There's a difference (or, at least, there had BETTER BE a 
difference!) between following the laws and "doing everything the government 
wants, exactly the way it wants."  It would be interesting to see the 
specific explanation which was given Netscape as to why they were required 
(if, indeed, they were required...) to use a specific system.  

It seems to me that a far more productive stance by Netscape would have been 
to say to the State Department, "We're going to put this software on the 
'net.  We're happy to put in any precautions which are SPECIFICALLY required 
under law and/or ITAR.  However, we insist that you document the fact that 
they are required, with full and complete legal explanations for your 
assertions.  Moreover, we insist that you explain why this position is 
consistent with MIT's posting of PGP."

At the very least, this would have set the government's position WRT ITAR in 
stone,  Part of the reason the governemnt has gotten so much 'mileage' out 
of ITAR is the fact that they morph it to do whatever they want, whenever 
they  want.  The best way to fight this is to tie down their position.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com