🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <david-0211970708000001@lax-ca66-44.ix.netcom.com>,
David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote:

>What it seems designed to do is allow a company outside the US to get a
>copy of PGP in  violation of US export law, negotiate separately with
>ASCOM for an IDEA license, and then sell the result as "PGP" in Europe.

What it seems (to me) designed to do is allow a company outside the US
to get a copy of PGP code in a way which does not violate US export
law, negotiate separately with ASCOM for an IDEA license, and then
sell the result as "PGP" in Europe.

David, you seem to be forgetting the Federal court case, a year or so
ago, in which it was ruled that a printed human-readable description
of a cryptographic algorithm is protected by the First Amendment, and
is thus legally exempt from the ITAR regulations.  This is true, it
was ruled, even if the description is meticulous, precise, and happens to
be written in a language which can be accepted and compiled by a
computer.

>If I were the US Government (I'm not) and someone actually did that I'd go
>after PGP for contributory violation of US export law, as the thing seems
>pretty blatant.

In this sort of situation (ruled the Federal court), the
Constitution's protections preempt the export law.

>                    It's the same principle as that of contributory
>infringement which led MIT to put the kludge in PGP 2.x.

Please don't conflate the contributory infringement issue (which is
fundamentally one of civil law) with the issue of ITAR and export law
(which is one of criminal law).

PGP isn't "contributing" to the violation of export law, because the
courts have already ruled that the code _can_ be exported legally in
one specific form... and the people who have exported it to create the
"international" version of PGP 5 have been quite open about the fact
that they've exported it in that protected form.

>The same doctrine might be used if the European version was based on
>typing in the published PGP code. It would make for an interesting case
>since the publication itself would only be called into question for its
>contributory consequences. It would clarify that area of the law, but the
>Justice Department might not wish so to do, since they might lose. (No
>arguments about free speech, publication, etc., please--I said they "might
>lose".)

David, they have _already_ lost on that issue.

-- 
Dave Platt                                        Speaker-to-kernels
dplatt@nc.com                                  Network Computer Inc.
Visit the Jade Warrior home page:     http://iq.nc.com/jade-warrior/