From: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 21:59:33 +0800
To: Cypherpunks <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Netscape
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GUL.3.94.960720233212.873A-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <199607211152.HAA03185@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Rich Graves writes:

: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
: 
: On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Mark M. wrote:
: > On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
: > 
: > > Why not consider what the consequences will be?  Do you seriously
: > > believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?
: > 
: > The government has yet to enforce ITAR.  The only thing they have been doin
: g
: > is threatening companies who make products with strong crypto.  If anyone w
: as
: > ever actually put on trial for a violation of ITAR, it would almost certain
: ly
: > be found to be unconstitutional.
: 
: So do it. None of this anonymous bullshit, or trying to drag Netscape into
: it. 
: 
: I'd donate whatever I could to a Cypherpunk Legal Defense Fund. We only need
: one volunteer with a lot of time on his/her hands. 
: 

Fortunately one does not have to be prosecuted to test the
constitutionality of the ITAR as they apply to cryptography: the
Bernstein and Karn cases have already been brought and at least one
other is in the pipeline.  But no one seems to be setting up a Legal
Attack Fund to support such litigation.  Perhaps some of those active on
the cypherpunks list would be interested in creating and supporting such
a fund.  One would hope that those corporate interests who keep
complaining about how the ITAR cut into their potential profits would be
willing to contribute.

--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
Internet:  junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu    junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu