From: Michael Froomkin <Michael@umlaw.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 95 14:37:59 PDT
To: bal@martigny.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (fwd)
Message-ID: <2426@umlaw.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message <9507150128.AA16854@toad.com> "Brian A. LaMacchia" writes:
[...] 

I agree that as drafted any GAK'ed crypto satisfies the 
affirmative defense under Grassley's s. 1030(a).

> 
> The proposed 1030A(c) provides a defense to prosecution under 1030A(a).
> So if GAKed crypto satisfies 1030A(c) then it can be deployed without
> fear of prosecution under 1030A(a).  It might still violate ITAR, of
> course, although I suspect any system that satisfies 1030A(c) would be
> granted a CJ.

AFAIK, neither Clipper nor Capstone have actually gotten export 
clearance yet.  No demand?  Fact that there were at last count 
no more than two beta versions of the decrypt processor in 
existence?  Or is my info just out of date....

[...]
-- 
Michael Froomkin                   until Aug 6: michael@umlaw.demon.co.uk
U.Miami School of Law                                     London, England
mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu <-- this will still find me
PO Box 248087 Coral Gables, FL 33124-8087     Rain. Sun. Rain. Sun. Rain.