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

Header Data

From: djw@pdcorp.com (Dan Weinstein)
To: James Black <black@sunflash.eng.usf.edu>
Message Hash: 821a1cc958a2e092e4b77ffec853c61775cb6dbb6994ec14840df37deb59ec3f
Message ID: <199511142110.NAA28546@email.pdcorp.com>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951114144604.9607A-100000@sunflash.eng.usf.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-14 21:38:17 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 05:38:17 +0800

Raw message

From: djw@pdcorp.com (Dan Weinstein)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 05:38:17 +0800
To: James Black <black@sunflash.eng.usf.edu>
Subject: Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951114144604.9607A-100000@sunflash.eng.usf.edu>
Message-ID: <199511142110.NAA28546@email.pdcorp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:49:23 -0500 (EST), you wrote:

>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.

The ITAR talks about crypto components, the government is interpreting
this as software that allows plug-in encryption.

Dan Weinstein
PGP public key is available from my Home Page.
All opinions expressed above are mine.

"I understand by 'freedom of Spirit' something quite definite -
the unconditional will to say No, where it is dangerous to say
           Friedrich Nietzsche