cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-10-27 - Re: CJR returned to sender

Header Data

From: Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To: “Peter D. Junger” <junger@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
Message Hash: 30a5b1adb3f0c9d956b79e5dc232551ef9c23e7c9d7916806a178a3ca5483f93
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951027100225.10892F-100000@viper.law.miami.edu>
Reply To: <m0t8aTG-0004JWC@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-10-27 14:38:28 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 22:38:28 +0800

Raw message

From: Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 22:38:28 +0800
To: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
Subject: Re: CJR returned to sender
In-Reply-To: <m0t8aTG-0004JWC@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951027100225.10892F-100000@viper.law.miami.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


And yet people like MIT get approval for the release of PGP this way.

It is clear that 
1) the government will (verbally?) clear the "PGP procedure" when pushed.
2) they need to be pushed.

If anyone from MIT is reading this, it would be a real public service to 
put on a web site (a) what the system used for the release of PGP is 
exactly and (b) what assurances (oral, written, names & dates) was 
received from State/Commerce that this was legal.

Publicizing this information would lay the groundwork for APA (or, given
the way the ITAR is written, maybe no...) and 5th Amendment / due process
challenges by other parties unable to get the straight answers they
deserve. 

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | 
U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's hot here.  And humid.

Thread