1995-11-14 - Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.

Header Data

From: James Black <black@sunflash.eng.usf.edu>
To: Jeff Barber <jeffb@sware.com>
Message Hash: 6f3f7d20a509057bb026ca829c170afa95e21a1c864ebdd2470ce572aaaf1275
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951114144604.9607A-100000@sunflash.eng.usf.edu>
Reply To: <199511141758.MAA14695@jafar.sware.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-14 20:17:24 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:17:24 +0800

Raw message

From: James Black <black@sunflash.eng.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:17:24 +0800
To: Jeff Barber <jeffb@sware.com>
Subject: Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.
In-Reply-To: <199511141758.MAA14695@jafar.sware.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951114144604.9607A-100000@sunflash.eng.usf.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Jeff Barber wrote:

> s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca writes:
> Does anyone know the ostensible justification for this?  What section of
> the ITARs do they point to when they say "this is illegal"?  I've perused
> an online copy of ITAR (no, I haven't read all of it -- I have other
> things I want to do this year :-), but I can't find a section that could
> be construed to support this contention.

  I scanned through the ITAR, and I agree that there doesn't seem to be 
anything about hooks that are illegal, but the NSA does have the 
authority to protect whatever threatens national security.  If they are 
over-stepping their bounds who is going to push it to court to find out, 
as that is where the decision would have to be made (very expensive).
  Take care and have fun.

James Black