🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec30.151754.10932@rose.com> robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) writes:


>Date Entered: 12-30-92 10:07
>amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes, in 
>Message-ID: <9212291723.AA25966@chaos.intercon.com>

>re something developed in Aussie land:

>A> Where it was developed is not relevant to ITAR.  If it performs encipherment, 
>A> it's covered--doesn't matter if it's foreign, domestic, PD or commercial.  
>A> This is the principle manner in which ITAR presents a trade barrier to U.S. 
>A> vendors who are trying to compete in international markets.
>A> 
>A> The Department of Commerce likes exports.  The Department of State doesn't.
>A> That's the U.S. regulatory system for you.

>I believe (I could be wrong) Australia is part of COCOM, which means 
>that crypto software and hardware are covered, and cannot be exported 
>or imported without permission from the government.  The ITARs are US 
>only, but the COCOM regs are not, and still cover the product.

But, do COCOM regs define encryption software as munitions?  (They
certainly won't include US laws or regulations by reference; there must be
a specific definition.)  Of course, the regs are probably secret....
--
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.