From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 06:20:00 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <rp@rpini.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: ITAR satellite provision
Message-ID: <199610031711.KAA25355@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 07:17 AM 10/3/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Remo Pini wrote:

>> Date: Thu Oct 03 08:08:42 1996
>> > >*   A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching
>> > >*   of such vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this
>> > >*   subchapter.
>> > Okay, everybody, call Estes!  We've got some crypto to export...er...laun
>> > ch!
>> If I get the above wording correctly (unicorn, help me!), it is sufficient 
>> to put the cryptostuff on a disc in a LAUNCHABLE device, it never says that 
>> the payload has to be delivered by air. So, just put that thing in a bag 
>> and get it through customs... (or does "by reason of ..." mean that the 
>> exclusive means of export allowed is launching ?)
>
>The launching alone will not cause it to be an export.  If it is launched
>and then ends up outside the U.S., it could be an export.  Certainly if it
>is launched with the purpose of exporting crypto, it will be an export.

Too bad you didn't support this with a logical argument.  The wording was 
clearly intended to be an exception to a rule.  What the wording doesn't 
include is the "exception to the exception," most likely because they 
weren't thinking in too great a detail when they wrote the regulations.  But 
if the regulation is "wrong," the fault of that is those who wrote the 
regulation.  (and we, the public, are entitled to assume that the regulation 
is "right" in its literal meaning.)

It appears that the government left a loophole so large that  you could 
drive a truck...er...shoot a rocket through it.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com