1996-11-09 - Re: WebTV a “munition”

Header Data

From: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 393ef2c14e19c97c0dc0efe1927a92dcdb28a0c0345c6a3bb4424a2ed12221e6
Message ID: <3283DB50.2847@netscape.com>
Reply To: <199611081616.IAA21577@slack.lne.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-09 01:15:39 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 17:15:39 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 17:15:39 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: WebTV a "munition"
In-Reply-To: <199611081616.IAA21577@slack.lne.com>
Message-ID: <3283DB50.2847@netscape.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Rich Graves wrote:
> Eric Murray wrote:
> >
> > Page 3 of the San Jose Mercury News has a small blurb
> > about WebTV's browser/set-top box that "uses
> > computer-security technology so powerful that the
> > government is classifying it as a weapon
> > that will require a special export license before
> > it can be sold overseas".[...]
> > shouldn't be too difficult.  If they didn't use the "export"
> > level SSL CipherTypes, then what're they up to?  Are they
> > fighting crypto export laws (for which they should be congratulated
> > and supported) or are they just looking for free publicity?
> Based on the lack of public policy pronouncements from the WebTV
> folks, I would answer C) They're clueless. I'm not sure that
> management even understood, or wanted to understand, that they'd have
> an export problem.
> See http://www.webtv.net/

Since Pablo Calamera works there, they can't be too clueless.

You should only break rules of style if you can    | Tom Weinstein
coherently explain what you gain by so doing.      | tomw@netscape.com