From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 19:18:20 -0800 (PST)
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Subject: Re: The Pro-CODE Bill could make things worse!
In-Reply-To: <199703030817.AAA24224@you.got.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970305181923.0062b098@popd.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:44 AM 3/5/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote:
>"Exports. The publisher or manufacturer of computer software or 
>hardware with encryption capabilities shall disclose (for reporting 
>purposes only) within 30 days after export to the Secretary such 
>information regarding a program's or product's encryption capabilities 
>as would be required for an individual license to export that program 
>or product." 
>
>The former has no real force, as "findings" aren't enforceable, but are
>intended for use by courts who are interpreting or construing a statute.
>But I don't see a technical reason why the latter wouldn't be enforceable.
>(Modulo the First Amendment, of course.) 

Can it be construed as a "taking"?  (Or was that just an "excise tax",
payable in intellectual property rather than in money?)
Unless the information required for an individual license is 
substantially less under the New Regime than under the Ancien' Regime,
they're asking for a lot of information - in the past, it's included
source code, documentation, etc., as well as customer data.
What restrictions are there on government use of this information apply?
State governments, e.g. California, have a history of ripping off
copyright and refusing to accept lawsuits against themselves -
can the Feds do the same?  Maybe they can't refuse to let you export
any more, but can they threaten to publish your source code on
http://www.dockmaster.mil/warez/ if you don't do what they want?....




#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
#     (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies.  Thanks.)