From: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 18:57:09 -0800 (PST)
To: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Subject: Re: ITARs effects
In-Reply-To: <199612150010.TAA02707@homeport.org>
Message-ID: <199612150254.VAA09810@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Adam Shostack writes:

: Peter D. Junger wrote:
: | 
: | : This implies that putting something up for FTP == export. Holy
: | : shit.
: | 
: | That has always been the position of the Department of Defense Trade
: | Controls with respect to the ITAR, the only difference is that now
: | it is going to be in writing.
: 
: 	My understanding is that they choose not to continue
: per^H^Hrosecuting Phil for putting the code up for FTP.  Thus, this is
: a change.  Or did Phil not put the code up for FTP?

Phil probably did not put up the code, but that is not the point.
They held his feet over the fire for three years and then, as the
statute of limitations ran out, dropped the case---perhaps because
they could not prove that Phil made the code available, perhaps
because they did not want to subject their position to judicial
review, probably for a combination of those reasons.  But that in no
way amounted to a change in what they claim.  In my case the
government's lawyer has made it quite clear that they would consider
putting cryptographic software on a web site as a violation, and I
don't think that for this purpose there is any distinction either in
the government's mind or in reality between an FTP site and a web
site.

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