From: Ernest Hua <Hua@teralogic-inc.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 19:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
To: cryptography@c2.net>
Subject: RE: Junger et al.
Message-ID: <413AC08141DBD011A58000A0C924A6D52C359A@mvs2.teralogic-inc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I don't understand ...

Did anyone demonstrate the "functionalness" of any arbitrary language
via a scanner and a compiler?

Why doesn't Gwin understand that the moment one successfully claims that
a specific class of source code is not speech by the virtue of the fact
that a compiler can transform it automatically into executable code
which performs a function, then ANY speech of ANY sort is fundamentally
vulnerable to being classified as functional as soon as a compiler can
transform it into real machine code.

So today, I can write the following:

1.	Find a container.
2.	Fill container with explosive substance.
3.	Move container to target location.
4.	Detonate container.

As soon as I have a compiler and a target machine that can execute these
instructions, suddenly this is not speech.  However, before this
compiler and machine combo exists, event the electronic form of this is
speech!

How could this be?

Ern

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	jkthomson [SMTP:jkthomson@bigfoot.com]
	Sent:	Monday, July 06, 1998 7:12 PM
	To:	cypherpunks@toad.com
	Subject:	Junger et al.



	Reuters

	3:40pm  6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has
dismissed a law
	professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the
export of
	computer data-scrambling technology.

	Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which
prevented
	Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter
Junger from
	posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not
violate
	the constitutional right to free speech.

	The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court
ruling last
	August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes
telling
	the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of
speech
	subject to First Amendment protection.

	"Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually
performs
	the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides
	instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded
circuitry in
	a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption."

	Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a
version of source
	code converted into an actual software program that could be run
on a
	computer.

	The US government appealed the California decision and the issue
may
	ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

	Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court
would
	overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses
	mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it
unreadable
	without a password or software "key."

	Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an
increasingly
	critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global
communications
	over the Internet.

	But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by
terrorists
	and international criminals to hide their activities, have
instituted
	strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling
products.

	Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court
misunderstood the
	difference between source code and compiled code.

	"The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative
nature of
	software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic
Frontier
	Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions,
but it
	does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is
speech
	deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection."




-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	 james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson@bigfoot.com>
www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh
	 jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D
[06.07.98]
	 ceildh   :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9
[05.14.98]
	 ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu     ...and former sysop of
tnbnog BBS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, 
	standardized, and understood, in that order

=======================================================================_