From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 09:44:31 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: ITAR satellite provision
In-Reply-To: <199610042101.OAA08867@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961004174949.14932A-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 08:09 PM 10/4/96 +0000, The Deviant wrote:
> >On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >[...]
> >> "A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching of such
> >> vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this subchapter."
> >> 
> >> Focus on "by reason of launching of such vehicle,"
> >> 
> >> Launching a vehicle alone is not export.  It takes more than launch to
> >> make it an export.  More than the launching is not much.
> >[...]
> >> --
> >> I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
> >> unicorn@schloss.li
> >> 
> >
> >So.. if I were to take PGP, put it on a floppy disk, tape it to a model
> >rocket, and launch it across the mexican border, that's not exporting it
> >(although the FAA might complain)?
> 
> 
> That's _my_ interpretation.  I look at it this way:  Missile launches can 
> 
> 1.  Return to the country of origin.
> 2.  Splash down in International waters.
> 3.  land on foreign soil.
> 4.  Orbit for awhile and land "somewhere."
> 5.  Orbit essentially forever.
> 6.  Go somewhere in space other than an earth orbit.
> 
> All this stuff is obvious to the people who wrote the regulation. In 
> addition, it is not necessarily certain which of these outcomes will occur 
> in any given launch.   The terminology in the rule above does not 
> distinguish any of these outcomes.  In the absense of further clarification, 
> it is logical to conclude that which particular route the missile 
> subsequently takes is irrelevant to the applicability of the exception.
> 
> This is particularly true, since the writers of that regulation were free to 
> add clarification should they have chosen to do so.  Further, that they 
> DIDN'T "clarify" is logical, because if the outcome of any given missile may 
> be uncertain, and assuming that this regulation was written as a 
> mutual-suck-up maneuver between government and industry, it is reasonable to 
> assume that the regulation would be interpretated to immunize the launcher 
> regardless of the launch's outcome.  One can reasonably suppose that 
> Rockwell wouldn't want to be declared in violation of ITAR simply because 
> the second stage of a rocket failed and dropped a crypto-carrying satellite 
> onto China.

I could make a practice around you alone if I were disposed to take
malpractice cases and if you had a license to practice law.

> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
> 

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li