🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec22.003359.1777@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:


>I believe Arthur Rubin to be in error when he argues that if it's
>public domain technical data it's ok, and so PGP is ok.

The law authorizing ITAR (which is not the Munications Act) specifies that
"public domain" technical data about munitions which has already been
published is exportable.  (The dimensions of secret aircraft, for
instance.)  A related law specifies that something "public domain" (defined
as generally available in the US) cannot be restricted material.  Whether
that law covers software for the purposes of ITAR is, indeed, unclear.

I'll ask my sources for details, and post (if this thread hasn't died by
then), probably around 5 January.

>First of all the language of the act I posted makes clear that

You were quoting regulations, not the law itself.  Regulations are
legally binding if they are consistent with the law, but the law did not
define software.  The question is whether the definition of
"restricted" software in a related law applies in the absence specific
language will get to the courts eventually, unless one of the laws is
repealed.

>Finally, without having read the Scientific American article I don't
>know if they violated the law or not, but this thread isn't about
>Scientific American, so I consider that a side show better treated
>as a separate matter for those interested.

In terms of ITAR, the thread IS about Scientific American.  If the
algorithm description in Scientific American is sufficient to produce the
restricted parts of PGP, then ONLY Scientific American (or R) could be
prosecuted under ITAR.
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.