1996-11-08 - Re: WebTV a “munition”

Header Data

From: “Jon Leonard” <jleonard@divcom.umop-ap.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 855efb3af943f739c4069f453653fa49704ebb9fc14e4a0fea2fbb666fd4a1d1
Message ID: <9611082146.AA25405@divcom.umop-ap.com>
Reply To: <199611081616.IAA21577@slack.lne.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-08 21:50:47 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 13:50:47 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: "Jon Leonard" <jleonard@divcom.umop-ap.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 13:50:47 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: WebTV a "munition"
In-Reply-To: <199611081616.IAA21577@slack.lne.com>
Message-ID: <9611082146.AA25405@divcom.umop-ap.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

Eric Murray wrote:
[Stuff about WebTv/crypto/export problems]
> So what's the story here?  It's a web browser, so they're
> probably talking about SSL.  SSL (both versions) already has mechanisims for
> allowing "export" level encryption, and although you still need to
> get a Commodities Jurisdiction, it's been done before so it
> 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?

I'm not sure they're doing either.  When I talked to my friends at WebTv,
I got the impression that they thought a functional browser needed to have
support for electronic commerce.  This electronic commerce needs crypto,
and if you're going to do crypto right, it has to be strong crypto.

Given that they've tried to do everything else right (and, in my opinion,
succeeded), that may be all there is to it.

I'll ask for more details next time I talk to them.

Jon Leonard