1995-12-07 - Re: Solution for US/Foreign Software?

Header Data

From: m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
To: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Message Hash: fb3d46f73871d0b88fb5b1df5f1f803d15ad8f795a3f3dbcf4d83bbbc83369ff
Message ID: <9512070028.AA01359@alpha>
Reply To: <199512062336.PAA13979@ix6.ix.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-12-07 00:28:06 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 16:28:06 PST

Raw message

From: m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 16:28:06 PST
To: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Solution for US/Foreign Software?
In-Reply-To: <199512062336.PAA13979@ix6.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9512070028.AA01359@alpha>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Bill Stewart writes:
 > I had interpreted the suggestion differently - rather than a system with 
 > user-accessible crypto hooks, the manufacturer could ship a binary patch
 > upgrade for US customers to install.  The internal design would presumably
 > have crypto hooks (i.e. subroutine calls); they can't ban that.

No, they can't *ban* it, but there's no reason to suspect that they
won't revoke the export license after the scheme becomes clear.  And
of course the patch itself would not be exportable.  If there's a
"wink wink nudge nudge" implication that the patch would make its way
overseas, I don't understand why that's really any more likely than
the US-only version getting out.

Note that the USGov puts definite explicit heat on corporations to
make it clear that they're serious about this stuff.  The responsible
VP for such things at one company with which I'm familiar was
explicitly reminded that he could personally be held criminally liable
for any transgressions of the export laws.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Nobody's going to listen to you if you just | Mike McNally (m5@tivoli.com) |
| stand there and flap your arms like a fish. | Tivoli Systems, Austin TX    |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Thread