cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1995-11-07 - Re: Exporting software doesn’t mean exporting (was: Re: lp ?)

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: hallam@w3.org
Message Hash: 6ca1c820e8de268fa15dedf0b87ae2d3909d6558346f4a1564f5f3292131e0e9
Message ID: <199511071551.KAA16700@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <9511070433.AA11349@zorch.w3.org>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-07 16:13:07 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 00:13:07 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 00:13:07 +0800
To: hallam@w3.org
Subject: Re: Exporting software doesn't mean exporting (was: Re: lp ?)
In-Reply-To: <9511070433.AA11349@zorch.w3.org>
Message-ID: <199511071551.KAA16700@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



hallam@w3.org writes:
> 
> >Were that the case, citizens couldn't sue to have provisions impacting
> >them enforced, but the fact of the matter is that they can.
> 
> Various treaties provide that various privilleges will be granted to
> various citizens of the countries concerned. Do the treaties grant
> such privilleges in this case? Just because there is a treaty on
> nuclear disarmament between the US and the USSR does not mean that
> you as a private citizen can press for enforcement through the
> courts if you think that the USSR is not performing.

No, but treaties permitting citizens of Canada to work in the U.S. are
enforceable in U.S. courts, and other similar treaties that have
personal impact are enforceable in court, such as tax treaties.

In the case of a treaty saying "you aren't breaking a third country's
laws if you transmit something that wouldn't be legal to say in that
country over its telecom lines", its a personal rather than a national
impact and it could be enforced in a U.S. court.

> >> Perry's somewhat offensive language is not a substitute for an argument.
> 
> >Thank you for the ad hominem.
> 
> Perry used the phrase "lobotomized mongoloid judge" I think that this
> type of language is offensive and unnecessary.

To whom was I being offensive, Mr. Hallam, given that I was refering
to a theoretical non-extant personage? Or are you a charter member of
"lobotomized mongoloids for equal justice" or some such.

> Ad hominem is a perfectly valid form of argument where one is considering
> the reputation of the person making the statement.

Yes, but my reputation is irrelevant to whether or not you can be
prosecuted as a foreigner for the act of handing another foreigner
cryptographic software outside the U.S.

Perry

Thread