From: lmccarth@cs.umass.edu (L. McCarthy)
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 95 15:17:44 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199507132116.VAA149322@smtp-gw01.ny.us.ibm.net>
Message-ID: <9507132217.AA10568@cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I wrote:
[some dense, ambiguous prose]

Jim writes:
> Pardon me if I misunderstood your point.  I haven't read the whole
> bill, but I read the "regardless" phrase with a different emphasis. 
> In short, that language appears to mean that one could be pounded with
> RICO for uploading crypto software even if the crypto is EXPORTABLE.
> 
> The part about subsequent instances of actual access to non-exportable
> crypto by foreigners, etc. appears to address a different situation --
> the situation where the crypto is non-exportable.
[...]

That's exactly my reading of both parts, more lucidly expressed, so I
guess my point wasn't clear before :)

> It is unclear, not having read the entire bill, whether the onerous
> provision in the case of non-exportable crypto would apply in the case
> of exportable crypto.  

Right -- that's the possible ambiguity I was trying to bring out. 

> This email is academic speculation.  This email is not legal advice,
> is not a consultation with counsel, and does not create an attorney-
> client relationship.  (As a condition of entering into an attorney-
> client relationship, I require a formal, ink-signed fee agreement.)

(Ditto, except that I require some years of law school too ;)

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>