From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:07:57 +0800
To: "Mark M." <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Netscape
In-Reply-To: <199607210918.FAA14603@quasar.voicenet.com>
Message-ID: <v03007804ae189101ccbb@[192.187.162.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:42 AM -0700 7/21/96, Mark M. wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, Bill Stewart wrote:
>
>> First of all, the goverrnment _has_ enforced ITAR; I've seen references
>> (ummm, on the net...) to a few cases of things like exporting TV decryptors,
>> as well as all the enforcement about illegal trafficking in guns and such.
>
>I haven't heard of anyone ever being indicted for exporting cryptography.  I
>should have made it clear that I was refering to ITAR as it applies to crypto,
>and not other items that would fall under ITAR.
>
>> But second, if you're threatened with jail and large fines, and have
>> to pay your lawyers lots of money to avoid being railroaded,
>> that's enforcement even if it's not the full-scale due process type.
>
>Quite true.  I was just refering to someone actually being tried and found
>guilty of violating ITAR by exporting cryptography.  I'd be very interested in
>any references to companies or individuals being prosecuted for exporting
>crypto.

Irrelevant. Why should they have to if nobody has done it and fessed up? A
law that is enforced because nobody is willing to violate it is just as
good as the kind where they shoot you after one overtime parking offense.
Better, because nobody gets shot.

David