cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-08-26 - Re: Commerce Department encryption rules declared unconstitutional

Header Data

From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
To: declan@well.com
Message Hash: 1f32ec065842da1cf310e5374fca0ce4c4476e25317204ea76f7f67b21edbe53
Message ID: <1.5.4.32.19970826140833.00860dd0@pop.pipeline.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-08-26 14:15:17 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 07:15:17 -0700 (PDT)

Raw message

From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 07:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
To: declan@well.com
Subject: Re: Commerce Department encryption rules declared  unconstitutional
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970826140833.00860dd0@pop.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Declan wrote:
>I think that's about right. One of the important questions was how broadly
>Patel would rule, whether her ruling would apply just to Bernstein &
>associates or whether she would enjoin the government from enforcing
>ITAR/EAR at all.
>
>Unfortunately, she chose the former. But look on the bright side: her
>narrow decision may be less likely to be reversed, no?

Does this not shift now to Peter Junger's suit: same issues, broader
challenge, same opposing arguments? Did Patel rule narrowly in
Bernstein to set the stage for the broader case in the works?

BTW, is there a suit being readied to follow Peter's? Karn II? PRZ 6.0?

What say, Peter, Lee, Cindy, Phil, Phil, Anthony et al?

Thread