1996-11-08 - Re: WebTV a “munition”

Header Data

From: Rich Graves <rcgraves@ix.netcom.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: a1b0753a5a1a7e291fcabf54159b5da0507371f7c8099578df36875abb5087f3
Message ID: <3283A25B.1D6E@ix.netcom.com>
Reply To: <199611081616.IAA21577@slack.lne.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-08 21:13:16 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 13:13:16 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Rich Graves <rcgraves@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 13:13:16 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: WebTV a "munition"
In-Reply-To: <199611081616.IAA21577@slack.lne.com>
Message-ID: <3283A25B.1D6E@ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

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/