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: hallam@w3.org
To: cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: ddb03b9d95b78ed64a73f33fe443589eebbe8733352658cb6c4beca5b896cba6
Message ID: <9511070341.AA15892@zorch.w3.org>
Reply To: <199511070208.VAA14762@jekyll.piermont.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-07 05:33:54 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:33:54 +0800

Raw message

From: hallam@w3.org
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:33:54 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Exporting software doesn't mean exporting (was: Re: lp ?)
In-Reply-To: <199511070208.VAA14762@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <9511070341.AA15892@zorch.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Perry chips in :
>"Peter D. Junger" writes:
>> The trouble is that the ITAR's definition of export that is relevant
>> to cryptographic software has nothing to do with exporting in the
>> normal sense, and therefore it has nothing to do with transhipments.

>I am starting to have trouble believing you are a lawyer. Are you
>actually telling me that treaties which explicitly indemnify
>transshipment customers against local laws are superceeded by lower
>level laws, in spite of the supremecy clause of the constitution? That
>might be what the state department would tell you, but I'd have
>trouble believing even a lobotomized mongoloid judge would let that
>stand. Treaties are treaties, period.

Actually there are exclusion clauses in most international trade treaties
to exclude items such as arms and drugs from transhipment clauses.
There are also various treaties to control trafic in arms and drugs whose
provisions may have precedence.

The US is not known for sticking to the narrow wording of an international
treaty in such cases. Panama was invaded for alledged transhipment of drugs
after all. I doubt anyone would seriously attempt to find a justification
for that act in international law. 

One of the many problems in Perry's approach is that an international treaty
is in essence a contract between governments. If the governments chose
to interpret a contract in a particular way they may not consider it any of
your buisness as a third party. They are after all always free to 
negotiate a new treaty.


Perry's somewhat offensive language is not a substitute for an argument.
Treaties certainly arn't "treaties period" otherwise the profession of
law would be a somewhat less skilled one. There is clearly considerable
complexity in the interpretation of treaties and in determining the
scope of their application, the various remedies they provide for and so
on. 

I think I would take Perry's disbelief that a person is a lawyer becuse
he disagrees with him as reflecting more on Perry than anyone else.
All contrary views are rejected... hmm...


	Phill

Thread