🚀 go-pugleaf

karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:
> The ITAR writers clearly never envisioned that software would be 
> freely given away. The assumption was that software, especially source 
> code, would be proprietary.

This is painfully obvious when you read the regulations.  They also evidently 
assumed that the USA has "natural" superiority in the areas of cryptography 
and computer technology.  Now, while that superiority may still be present in 
some respects, it is by now obvious that it is by no means "natural", and is 
at this time *impeded* by export restrictions, not enhanced by them, since it 
restrains U.S. industry from competing effectively in the global marketplace.

One can only hope that the new administration, with its emphasis on 
revitalizing the economy, will take a second look at some of this, and at 
least move software-only cryptosystems into the domain of the Commerce Dept. 
instead of the State Dept.

This is the first issue that has me seriously considering writing the White 
House as well as my congresscritters.  Sigh.  I wish that I could find a 
congresscritter who had enough of a clue to push for hearings on the issue, 
but no luck yet.  Anyone have any suggestions?



Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation