Article View: sci.crypt
Article #3108Re: Complete ITAR Available
From: Perry E. Metzger
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:13
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:13
85 lines
4762 bytes
4762 bytes
David Sternlight again confounds several issues. strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes: > >Ed Hamrick offers the ITAR in machine readable form, and I look forward >to reading my copy. In the meantime, his summary conclusion that >ftp-able material is o.k. under ITAR seems weak to me because >the justification involves language like "published" and >"released". I would argue that if someone uploads software that >violates patents, etc. that act, which some might consider theft, >is not included in the notions of "published" or "released". >But that's a tentative conclusion--don't let's argue about it >until I've had a chance to read the ITAR. David; The whole purpose of the ITAR is to try to distinguish that which a spy would have a reasonable ability to get their hands on, and which is thus beyond protection, and that which a spy would not have a reasonable chance to get their hands on. All this requires is that the information was released to the public. Now, so far as I can tell, this is totally orthogonal to the question of the legality of the release of the information itself. Irrespective of whether the information was legally released, the fact that it was released means that the horse is out of the barn and locking the door will no longer keep it in. >My point is that perhaps the law requires one to have the right >to publish or release in order for the language quoted to apply. >This is not yet a firm conclusion on my part, but should be read >for now as an "uh, er," until I can read further. But I didn't want >Ed's "conclusion" to stand undisputed. Why should it matter if the horse was legally released from the stable? Locking the door no longer will keep the horse in. >Putting it another way, if PGP infringes, then the author does not >have the legal right to declare it public domain, in that he doesn't >own the infringing portion. To see this clearly, suppose I upload a >copy of Microsoft Word and declare it public domain. Saying so doesn't >make it so, and Microsoft could not only prosecute me, but also anyone >with a copy. Yes, but assuming that for some reason Microsoft Word was non-exportable, having released it to the public in that manner (say, publishing all the source code in a newspaper) might make me liable for copyright infringement, but would also have the effect of totally abrogating any secrecy associated with that information. In other words, the question of copyright, patent, and other forms of infringement is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the export of some information is legal under the ITARs. >Some have tried to argue that if they weren't the person uploading PGP >originally, they could download and use it with impunity. As one can >see from the above reduction ad absurdum, this cannot be or the only >person Microsoft could go after would be the original uploader, but >not those with copies of that upload. Worked examples include >successful piracy prosecutions in the courts. Ah, but lets consider the actual case at hand, shall we? 1) the person downloading software is downloading software that the author has copylefted, so he isn't liable for copyright violations. 2) the person downloading software is downloading software thats widely available to the public, so it is doubtful that a prosecution under the ITARs would work. 3) the person downloading software is possibly infringing a patent owned by public key partners. Presumably, they could sue, and get damages. Since a free version of the same software, more or less, has been sanctioned by public key partners, it would appear that, if their suit was successfull, they could not recover any money since no damages were caused to them -- the software that does not infringe being distributed by public key partners at no cost. Overall, it would seem that David continues to harangue us for no apparent reason. Thats ok, though. By letting him harangue us like this, he is being kept off the streets, where he might see innocent youngsters necking, which he would doubtless feel compelled to report to the police. -- Perry Metzger pmetzger@shearson.com -- Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan11.211324.15831@shearson.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!shearson.com!snark!pmetzgerReferences:
<1993Jan10.215609.3109@convex.com> <1993Jan11.003432.15501@netcom.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.ripem Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!shearson.com!snark!pmetzger From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) Subject: Re: Complete ITAR Available Message-ID: <1993Jan11.211324.15831@shearson.com> Sender: news@shearson.com (News) Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug References: <1993Jan10.215609.3109@convex.com> <1993Jan11.003432.15501@netcom.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:13:24 GMT Lines: 85