1996-12-31 - Constitutionality of new regs.

Header Data

From: Bovine Remailer <haystack@cow.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f2d540119d5ef04b5a9f97191d09916c7057e585d512bbc6288da950e6fc21ee
Message ID: <9612311143.AA08693@cow.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-31 11:59:45 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 03:59:45 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Bovine Remailer <haystack@cow.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 03:59:45 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Constitutionality of new regs.
Message-ID: <9612311143.AA08693@cow.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

	One issue which I haven't seen anybody address is the
provision to make export licenses easier to obtain for those
companies which show a credible business plan that supports GAK.

	1) Isn't this showing favouritism in an administrative
decision to people who support the government's political agenda.

	2) If the export of a certain encryption `item' is inimical to
`National Security', isn't the harm to the `National Security' the same
regardless of whether the exporter plans to produce GAK products in the future
or not?

	Based on these two points shouldn't this aspect of the regulations
considered as being `arbitrary' and hence unconstitutional.

	A further thought. If you obtain an export license by showing
the government a business plan that supports GAK, but then do not
follow your business plan, how will the goverment `get' you?