From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 04:34:03 +0800
To: azur@netcom.com
Subject: Re: EAR question
In-Reply-To: <v03102800b04b685e4382@[10.0.2.15]>
Message-ID: <199709222023.VAA02921@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com> writes:
> If crypto source code is published in printed form and distributed under a
> non-disclousre agreement does it meet the uncontrolled export criteria
> under the new EAR regs?  My question seems to hinge on the definition of
> "general distribution," in Sec. 734.7.
> 
> The key passages seem to be:
> 
> Sec. 734.3  Items subject to the EAR.
> 
> * * * * *
>     (b) * * *
>     (3) Publicly available technology and software, except software
> controlled for EI reasons under ECCN 5D002 on the Commerce Control
> List, that:

Have you read 5D002?  I think this is the clause which says that you
can not export it for whatever reason.

My reason for thinking this is from reading some of Peter Jungers
docs at:

	http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/comp_law/jvd/pdj-bxa-gjs070397.htm

the decision the commerce department made on the RSA sig said that it
was not exportable, 5D002 was the paragraph quoted as the reason why
it was not exportable.

That is perhaps it is not that interesting what you can do with stuff
which isn't designated 5D002, as that is exportable anyway.

On a related note my understanding of what Peter Junger is saying is
that under EAR you can export anything you want just by printing it on
a piece of paper and snailing it.

Adam
--
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* violated EAR today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`