1996-07-20 - Re: Gorelick testifies before Senate, unveils new executive order

Header Data

From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
To: Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>
Message Hash: bbc2e82483c8fa7fe147b3e146883d9f8f0e622418a733f64dde879018e0b7ef
Message ID: <v03007606ae158acd52ca@[]>
Reply To: <v03007601ae14f5fa1d3d@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-20 12:30:52 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:30:52 +0800

Raw message

From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:30:52 +0800
To: Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Gorelick testifies before Senate, unveils new executive order
In-Reply-To: <v03007601ae14f5fa1d3d@[]>
Message-ID: <v03007606ae158acd52ca@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

At 5:55 AM -0700 7/19/96, Jeff Barber wrote:
>Yeah, right.  You clearly chose not to address the requirements of
>international company networks in your argument.  You admit that such
>companies have international networks, and that you knew it.  It was
>obviously relevant and you could have and should have addressed it.
>The fact that you chose not to speaks to your own lack of integrity.
>To gain the upper hand in the argument is clearly your supreme objective;
>any point that doesn't fit the argument is simply not addressed.

As usual, when someone calls names it is a tip-off that his argument is bogus.

1. Each country can defend its domestic infrastructure without having to
defend the international infrastructure and the international
infrastructure will pretty much take care of itself. Multinationals should
defend their branches on the territory of the host countries and within
their rules, not from the US.

2. The presenting issue here is information warfare against the US.

What is more what you say is false. I did say that there were exceptions to
ITAR for some US companies, which permit strong crypto to be used in their
overseas operations. What is more, for many months now State has permitted
US Cits to take strong crypto out of the country for personal use, if they
agree to some elementary safeguards.

Your comment is yet another example of the juvenile argument ("juvenile" in
the sense that one sees it a lot in young children whose logical
sophistication hasn't yet developed) that if something isn't perfect it
shouldn't be done at all.

Rest omitted. I'm not going to take any more time with someone who lards
his prose with deliberate personal offense and the questioning of motives.