🚀 go-pugleaf

`comp' is not a valid distribution.  Fix your software, or stop adding in
illegal header lines.

In article <JGJ.92Apr6150320@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:
>Export of
>encryption software is forbidden in this country.  

But import isn't.  If you'd taken the time to look, you would have noticed
that the author of the library came from Australia, and the article was
approved by someone in the UK.

Relatively few sites feed out of country, due to phone costs.  Of those that
do, at least a few were notified some time ago when there was a discussion
on the moderators' mailing list about doing this.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "One form to rule them all, one form to find them, one
sef@kithrup.COM  |  form to bring them all and in the darkness rewrite the
-----------------+  hell out of them" -- sendmail ruleset 3 comment from DEC.
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.

In article <JGJ.92Apr6150320@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com>
jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:

   > 3500: [1641:eay@psych.ps] v29i044: libdes - DES encryption library, Part02/04

   Is someone trying to get USENET blasted out of existance?  Export of
   encryption software is forbidden in this country.

Which country are you talking about?  Look at the article header -- it
was submitted from Australia to the co-moderator of comp.sources.misc,
who posted it from England:

> From: eay@psych.psy.uq.oz.au (Eric Young)
> Newsgroups: comp.sources.misc
> Subject: v29i043: libdes - DES encryption library, Part01/04
> Message-ID: <csm-v29i043=libdes.234005@aber.ac.uk>
> Date: 3 Apr 92 22:40:35 GMT
> Sender: aem@aber.ac.uk (Alec David Muffett)
> Followup-To: comp.sources.d
> Organization: University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
> Lines: 2312
> Approved: aem@aber.ac.uk
> X-Md4-Signature: 9f382ac7159601bb8bc7296560ec5188

If anyone *did* post DES code from within the US, it would be the
poster's neck and not the collective neck of Usenet that would be at
stake.

To pick a nit, export of encryption software is *not* forbidden in the
US; you just have to have the appropriate export license from the
State or Commerce Department.  Of course, the license may have a few
restrictions.  :-)
--
Karl Fox, Morning Star Technologies                            +1 800 558 7827
1760 Zollinger Road, Columbus, Ohio 43221                      +1 614 451 1883

In article <JGJ.92Apr6150320@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:

   > 3500: [1641:eay@psych.ps] v29i044: libdes - DES encryption library, Part02/04

   Is someone trying to get USENET blasted out of existance?

It's "existence."

   Export of
   encryption software is forbidden in this country.  If any site is
   feeding comp.sources.misc to a site outside the country (USA), then
   they are now in more violation of more federal laws than you can shake
   a stick at.

1) The software was posted by someone from Australia.  It was approved
by a moderator in the United Kingdom.  Considered that I don't think
anyone has *ever* been put on trial, or even charged, for exporting
DES software from the United States, do you *really* think the US
government is going to try to prosecute a USENET site for
automatically feeding a measly DES encryption library that was already
available on archive sites all over the world?  Yeah, right.

2) I suspect that *one* law is being broken.  *One*, not "more federal
laws than you can shake a stick at."  Misplaced hyperbole does nothing
to strengthen your argument.  I don't suppose you can cite all of
those laws you're worried about breaking?

   Between this and the posting of copyrighted pictures in
   the alt.binaries.pictures groups, I will be surprised if USENET is
   still around by the end of the year.

"Imminent death of the USENET predicted.  Film at 11."

-- 
Jonathan Kamens						jik@MIT.Edu
MIT Information Systems/Athena		    Moderator, news.answers
    (Send correspondence related to the news.answers newsgroup
	{and ONLY correspondence related to the newsgroup}
		 to news-answers-request@MIT.Edu.)

In article <JGJ.92Apr6150320@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:
>Is someone trying to get USENET blasted out of existance?  Export of
>encryption software is forbidden in this country.  If any site is
>feeding comp.sources.misc to a site outside the country (USA), then
>they are now in more violation of more federal laws than you can shake
>a stick at.  Between this and the posting of copyrighted pictures in
>the alt.binaries.pictures groups, I will be surprised if USENET is
>still around by the end of the year.

Clues are available free of charge from your local USENET archive site.

But to save you the effort, I'll point out what is wrong with your line
of thinking -

| Sender: aem@aber.ac.uk (Alec David Muffett)
| Organization: University College of Wales, Aberystwyth

Wales is NOT in the United States, nor is the sender's machine.  This
is =imported= software and as such, doesn't apply to =export=
restrictions.

Not that I wouldn't mind having Wales in the US.  Or more precisely,
having the US back in the UK where it belongs ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II        | Every 56 days.   | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 | Give Blood, often.    | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats."
		-- Benjamin Franklin

> > If any site is
> > feeding comp.sources.misc to a site outside the country (USA),

> Clues are available free of charge from your local USENET archive site.

> | Sender: aem@aber.ac.uk (Alec David Muffett)
> | Organization: University College of Wales, Aberystwyth

> Wales is NOT in the United States, nor is the sender's machine.  This
> is =imported= software and as such, doesn't apply to =export=
> restrictions.

I have plenty of clues, Thank You.  Here let me share a few with you.
I'm quite aware that the code originated outside the USA.  That
matters not one iota to US law, as far as I know.  It is illegal to
export the code regardless of where it came from.  If some Canadian or
Mexican or Cuban ( :-) site gets its feed from the US, then an illegal
export has occured.  If someone ftps it from a US archive site, then
an illegal export has occured.  I've simply been made paranoid about
all this by discussions in comp.risks and rec.photo.



> Not that I wouldn't mind having Wales in the US.  Or more precisely,
> having the US back in the UK where it belongs ...

I hope you simply forgot to put a smiley there.

--
============================================================================
Jeffrey Glen Jackson  _|_Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna
jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com |     bust you up tonight."
x5120                  | Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day."
                   ~~~~~~~~~ -- Carman, "The Champion"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In article <20607@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
>In article <JGJ.92Apr6150320@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:
>>Is someone trying to get USENET blasted out of existance?  Export of
>>encryption software is forbidden in this country.  If any site is
>>feeding comp.sources.misc to a site outside the country (USA), then
>>they are now in more violation of more federal laws than you can shake
>>a stick at.
>
>I'll point out what is wrong with your line of thinking -
>| Sender: aem@aber.ac.uk (Alec David Muffett)
>| Organization: University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
>
>Wales is NOT in the United States, nor is the sender's machine.  This
>is =imported= software and as such, doesn't apply to =export= restrictions.

Mr. Jackson was mostly right.  Mr. Haugh is half-right but only on the
irrelevant half.  There is no problem with feeding the postings from Wales
to the U.S.  There is a problem with feeding the same postings back out
from the U.S. to other countries, including to the originator.

Although my personal understanding of the issue is not reliable enough
for anyone else to base their decisions on, the problem seems to be more
along the lines of threats from U.S. policy administrators rather than the
law as written and legislated.  However, the threat is real.

For example, I could possibly write some code and copy it to the U.S.,
but would then be prohibited from copying it back to my desktop machine.
I could give a tape to a friend, but could not send it to him by e-mail,
because my employer's e-mail gateway is in the U.S.  (I haven't done any
of this, but this is my understanding of what U.S. policy administrators
assert to be allowed and prohibited.)

However, I don't think this kind of action would lead to the death of
Usenet.  It would lead to two separate Usenets, one for the U.S. and
one for most of the rest of the world, where most of the rest of the
world would communicate freely.  Rebirth of Usenet predicted, film at 11.
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@jit081.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
"Yeah -- bad wiring.  That was probably it.  Very bad."

In article <JGJ.92Apr7124757@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com>, jgj@ssd (Jeff Jackson) writes:
>I'm quite aware that the code originated outside the USA.  That
>matters not one iota to US law, as far as I know.

As we see from the Noriega trial, I suppose the U.S. government could
invade Wales and Australia, kill a few hundred or thousand bystanders
and bring the poster of the code and the moderator of the group to
"justice" in USA.  So I suppose you are right, and even that the
poster and moderator are not U.S. citizens and not under the U.S.
juridiscation don't matter one iota to US law (enforcement).

>It is illegal to
>export the code regardless of where it came from.  If some Canadian or
>Mexican or Cuban ( :-) site gets its feed from the US, then an illegal
>export has occured.  If someone ftps it from a US archive site, then
>an illegal export has occured.

So?

I encourage people to practice sex between two consenting men more, as
it's enjoyable as sex in general.  So there, I broke Finnish law with
the previous sentence.  At least yet nobody dropped a hot stone on my
head, neither did I or Usenet cease to exist.  What's the point here?

//Jyrki