From: Tom Paquin <paquin@netscape.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 21:43:34 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Netscape download requirements
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960719084701.006a8aac@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
Message-ID: <31EFCCCC.B13@netscape.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote:
> 
> Allow the government to think that we think it has the right to give
> us their permission and we've lost everything.

Unfortunately, I am involved n a business, and what is acceptable
or humiliating for free individuals is fiercely practical, not
philosophical.  Quite in particular: my president solicits
the best legal advice he can get, and decides whether or not
he, himself, wants to go to jail, and what the risk of that is.
"Free" takes on a whole new meaning.  I cannot appeal to his sense
of how severe the risks are.

> Exporting crypto-systems and killing people is comparing apples
> and hand grenades.  Please come up with a relevant analogy.

You missed the point.  Right now the government is in the midst
of a policy review.  Your inclination to view that policy as
irrlevant simply doesn't matter.  Proving to them that a more
tolerant policy would not be in their interest is not in our
interest.

Screw with this system and I can bet how the policy review
will come out.


> 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).

Fine.  Go there, do that.  Please don't use our mechanism as
an integral part.  Once you have the data, there are all sorts
of ways you can exercise considerable civil disobedience completely
on your own without involving our mechanism.
 
> 2)  Please don't misuse the information you gain by logging all your
> network traffic.

We log everything having to do with the US downloads.  I'm not
involved in the eleventy-skillion other net connections which
come in here.  
 
> 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.  

You may or may not have noticed, but our president has testified,
effectively, in Washington several times.  We participate in 
"public" (means govt) debate on this heavily.  We are engaged.

> Besides, contrary to your gist, this
> is probably one of the most prominent pieces of enforcement, and
> therefore a very logical candidate for attack.

Like I said, if you want to attack, please attack without dragging 
our mechanism into it.  Allow companies to provide you the data 
while you mount your attack.  You can be more effective.  You'll
have more tools.  More will be out there.  More of you will
have access to something to be disobedient with.

My very personal opinion: I loathe giving out my phone number
to anonymous corporate entities.  I do it from time to time, but
never without a bristle.  I would prefer if we weren't asking
for it, but I'm engaged in an opitimization exercise, or you
might look at it as minimization of evil.  Whatever.

--
Tom Paquin            Netscape Communications Corp
about:paquin