From: jamesd@echeque.com
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 20:06:47 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
Message-ID: <199603270702.XAA03401@dns2.noc.best.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:06 PM 3/26/96 GMT, aba@atlas.ex.ac.uk wrote:
> ie I would have thought that getting rid of ITAR would be beneficial
> to internet commerce in general, and likely advance uptake of
> electronic cash (by several years?)  For whatever reasons (best known
> to themselves) even big fish like netscape, and microsoft don't seem
> to have any stomach for taking on the USG in any meaningful way over
> the issue.

If the Leahy bill got rid of ITAR, then that would be a very great
advance.  It is far from clear that it does get rid of ITAR.

If it was interpreted in a reasonable manner, then indeed it would
get rid of ITAR.  But if ITAR was interpreted in a reasonable manner,
then that also would get rid of ITAR
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              				|  
We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind	|  
of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the	|  
arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com