From: aba@dcs.exeter.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 95 04:43:58 PDT
To: rsalz@org.osf
Subject: Re: Linking = Showing = Transferring?
In-Reply-To: <9509151114.AA07872@sulphur.osf.org>
Message-ID: <10345.9509151143@exe.dcs.exeter.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> > [using inline images to display theoretically ITAR violating gifs]
> 
> Inline images are not references -- they are part of the page being
> retrieved.  
>
> >	<img src="http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/obscura/rsa.gif">
> >So that the image is *imported* by the *viewer*, and not supplied by
> >www.obscura.
> 
> I would advise him to edit the page so it reads
>
>	Click <A HREF="http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/obscura/rsa.gif">here
>	to see a picture of the shirt.

I wrote the page, Lance kindly provided www space which I set up, he's
seen it, and thought it funny even.  Sounds like you seriously think
this is a danger to Lance, something I hoped I avoided by using an
inline from outside the ITAR zone.

> Inlined images are just a convenient way of chunking.  The image is
> imported by the viewer because the server, as part of the base
> document, told it to do so.  You might be able to fool an ignorant
> court, but it still doesn't change the fact that Lance has a
> document that in the natural course of operation of the Web, exports
> crypto.

Weeell, I'm not so sure.  I mean the page says to view this page first
get this picture from here, this one from here, this text, format and
display.  It is not illegal to say *where* to get crypto, just illegal
to export it, right?  He hasn't exported it, just told the viewer
where to fetch it from.

I think this case is safer than the porn one, because the actual data
in this case is legal in both jurisdictions, it just must not be
transferred from jurisdiction US -> jurisdiction non-US, which it has
not been.

If it were something which where illegal in the US, hmm, lets say an
image of a slightly underage (underage under US definitions, not
dutch) dutch porn star, then having links to it might be argued as
incitement to view something which it would be illegal to view in the
US, something which is effectively illegal to import into the US.

I would agree with you were the information imported by way of an
inline image actually illegal in the US, as the person loading would
have no choice.  In such a case a disclaimer might be appropriate:

	warning, it may be illegal to import the following link into
	the US, I will not be responsible if you are in the US and
	click on this link

But what is there to disclaim with inline data which is itself legal
in both jurisdictions, and the only legal question being the transfer
of that data from US -> UK, which the protocol ensures does not
happen?

Browser in the US, text in US, crypto gif imported from UK, both legal.

Browser outside US, text in US, crypto gif imported from UK, both legal.

See a flaw in that?

Try that in France might be more interesting, where it really is
illegal to import crypto.

It's kind of theoretical, but an interesting argument... what happens
when this happens with porn, is perhaps a more tricky question, re
possible illegality of import from outside US, maybe in such cases you
should request the viewer to turn off autoload of images, so that they
must request them after reading the disclaimer text.  Or perhaps it
would be necessary to ensure that it never happens automatically
without the user clicking on a button certifying that they are not in
the US, the antithesis of MIT's I affirm I am a US citizen blah, blah,
that goes with getting PGP from their site (I didn't get it btw, I
just read the questions for my amusement).

Adam