cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1995-11-07 - Re: lp ?

Header Data

From: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
To: “Peter D. Junger” <junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu>
Message Hash: 445055624ffbc4170c7659a7b7e8bd73b374f9782a9f508f811aa62e3b247aff
Message ID: <199511072043.PAA12012@universe.digex.net>
Reply To: <m0tCWQC-0004JWC@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-07 21:35:20 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 05:35:20 +0800

Raw message

From: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 05:35:20 +0800
To: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu>
Subject: Re: lp ?
In-Reply-To: <m0tCWQC-0004JWC@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
Message-ID: <199511072043.PAA12012@universe.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


"Peter D. Junger" writes:
>"Perry E. Metzger" writes:
>
>: 
>: Thaddeus J. Beier writes:
>: > So, if this person was sending cryptographics codes from Switzerland
>: > to Israel, the code would have been imported to the US, then exported
>: > by UUNET.  They can't do that, can they?  Probably nobody would prosecute,
>: > but it might be something to threaten UUNET with if one of their Northern
>: > Virginia neighbors ever wanted something the couldn't get otherwise.
>: 
>: It isn't clear that telecoms treaties don't implicitly make this legal
>: in spite of the export regulations.
>
>Once again, what the ITAR forbid is the disclosure of cryptographic
>software to a foreign person within or without the United States, so
>it does not make any difference whether the message containing the
>code passes through the United States or not.

OTOH, the ITAR explicitly permits "temporarily imported" munitions to
be re-exported.  Those clauses should entirely eliminate the issue of
whether UUNET could be held liable under ITAR.  ITAR says otherwise --
see section 120.18.

Thread