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: “Peter D. Junger” <junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu>
Message Hash: f1ec25aeb2e37d9ff5e2055b605952a8ffe88f0433fc7b6036dec0abaa149c57
Message ID: <199511070405.XAA14913@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <m0tCewB-0004JWC@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-07 06:06:55 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:06:55 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:06:55 +0800
To: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu>
Subject: Re: Exporting software doesn't mean exporting (was: Re: lp ?)
In-Reply-To: <m0tCewB-0004JWC@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
Message-ID: <199511070405.XAA14913@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



"Peter D. Junger" writes:
> "Perry E. Metzger" writes:
> 
> : 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.
> 
> What I am telling you, if you would pay attention, is that there is no
> transhipment involved.  The violation of the ITAR consists of
> disclosing information, not shipment.

Given that it is a non-U.S. national disclosing information to a
non-U.S. national, both being outside the U.S.'s borders, with their
only involvement with the U.S. being an incidental traversal of their
communications via U.S. telecoms networks, I would say that it would
be a case where the telecoms treaties would come into play.

> If a Frenchman on vacation in the Riviera shows a copy of PGP sourcecode
> to a German businessman there, that is literally a violation of the
> ITAR.

Where the hell did you get that idea?  The ITAR clearly does not apply
to foreigners disclosing things to each other outside the United
States. I've read it and I can't see how it could possibly be so
interpreted. I'm not a lawyer, but this interpretation is so bizarre
as to be almost untenable. I can clearly see that a U.S. person
talking about DES to a foreign person can be a violation under the
language in the regulations, but there is no way on earth to interpret
the regulations as applying to foreigners abroad talking to other
foreigners outside the U.S.

> Don't expect the ITAR to make any sense.  And don't think that you can
> apply logic to the ITAR and get logical results.  It doesn't work that
> way.

I was under the impression, though, that the words meant what they
said.

Perry

Thread