From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 18:18:37 +0800
To: Sandy Sandfort <tomw@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: Netscape
In-Reply-To: <31F2DBAE.41C6@netscape.com>
Message-ID: <v03007800ae18d6652564@[192.187.162.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 7:54 PM -0700 7/21/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

>Personally, I think it was a good idea for the American Colonists
>to shoot at the British from behind rocks and trees.  As Tom
>pointed out in his post, there are relatively few Cypherpunks.
>We all do what we can, in whatever way best suits are temprament,
>talents and acceptible risk level.  There is no single tao; there
>are many paths.  For Netscape, dialog and negotiations may be the
>best way to promote privacy, for Zimmermann, it was guerilla
>programming, for others it might be high-tech monkey-wrenching.
>To each his own.  As far as I can see, they are all trying to
>bring strong crypto to everyone.

If monkeywrenchers allege that they are trying to "help" us, they are
lying. Netscape is bringing strong crypto to most US people.
Monkeywrenchers are saying 'if everyone can't have it, nobody can' if they
monkey-wrench Netscape's net downloading permission from the government.
Since it's pretty unlikely their monkeywrenching will result in the repeal
of ITAR, they are little different from the spoiled brats who, when told
they can't keep another child's candy, throw it in the dirt and stamp on it
so nobody can have it.

I read Tim May's suggestions, and while he is sincere and trying to be
helpful, I use strong language above because it's time we called things for
what they are instead of politely pussyfooting around them. Monkeywrenchers
are no friends of Cypherpunks. They are the enemy, as surely as is
mandatory key escrow in the US.

David