From: karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
To: hfinney@shell.portal.com
Message Hash: 86f94c0f8ce9bd5fe1e634b7f03216cb3eae5fd1c16a0cce5d7be7ba2098f66b
Message ID: <9309231334.AA13005@servo>
Reply To: <9309230510.AA06301@jobe.shell.portal.com.shell.portal.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-09-23 13:38:13 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 06:38:13 PDT
From: karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 06:38:13 PDT
To: hfinney@shell.portal.com
Subject: First amendment and ITARs
In-Reply-To: <9309230510.AA06301@jobe.shell.portal.com.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <9309231334.AA13005@servo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Hal,
Many thanks for posting those opinions. It doesn't look good at first glance.
On the other hand, there are some differences with the present case. Here
there is no question that the technical data on which PGP was based is already
extremely widespread around the world, so there is a question about whether
the form (algorithm description vs source code) makes a difference. And
there's a question about whether it's enough to simply make something available
for FTP within the US to get in trouble, and if so, how one reconciles this
with the First Amendment.
Phil
Return to September 1993
Return to “karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)”