1995-10-26 - Re: CJR returned to sender

Header Data

From: tbyfield@panix.com (t byfield)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: c97e6c37502b47f63691b30d2d70934c7b635bb31d6bdac4f5c5c4a4848304ee
Message ID: <v02120d06acb4ee63f448@DialupEudora>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-10-26 07:14:35 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 15:14:35 +0800

Raw message

From: tbyfield@panix.com (t byfield)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 15:14:35 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: CJR returned to sender
Message-ID: <v02120d06acb4ee63f448@DialupEudora>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

At 11:30 PM 10/25/95, Jeff Weinstein wrote:

>  Should they also reject the same content (RSA-PERL) delivered
>in any of the following ways:
>        Printed on paper
>        Printed on paper in OCR font
>        Printed on paper in barcode
>        Printed on paper with magnetic ink (like checks)
>  The lines being drawn here seem very arbitrary.

        FWIW, in principle I agree with Michael and Tim: 90% of the point
of the lark was the absurdity of a T-shirt being a "munition." OTOH, the
arbitrariness of ITAR enforcement--regardless of the form of the CJRs
filed--is very troubling. When the USG so selectively enforces federal law,
one has to wonder what criterion is informing the selection. And this
"little" adventure could (IANAL, etc.) have a bright side: if the CJR were
submitted in a verifiable way (courier, certified, etc.) and the agency in
question had documentably refused to examine the materials submitted or to
take the application seriously, wouldn't this weaken any subsequent effort
to prosecute in another, more practical case involving the same code? If
so, maybe something halfway between a T-shirt and a book--y'all can figure
out what--encoded with machine-readable source for PGP might be in order.
In order not for some silly thread but, rather, for a meticulously
documented CJR, with an eye toward slowly upping the ante: submit the exact
same code in a variety of less and less absurd formats until the USG
chooses to deal with it--all the while presuming that their failure to
consider a CJR in this or that format constituted a de facto approval for