🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <716@phred.UUCP> artm@phred.UUCP (Art Marriott) writes:
>
.................
>It seems that since the Reagan administration took office the military has
>operated under the assumption that ALL scientific and technological develop-
>ments in the US are potentially its property if they can possibly be used for
>military purposes.  I don't know if this has been challenged lately in court,
>but most technical organizations either don't want to bother with it or are
>aware that a substantial percentage of their membership work for the government
>in one way or another.
>
>What's regrettable is that this in fact tends to stifle development of tech-
>nology.  Eventually the boys in uniform won't have to worry about keeping our
>great stuff from getting out of the country because we won't have anything that
>anybody else would want.
>
>                                                  Art Marriott
>                                                  Physio-Control
>                                                  tikal!phred!artm
>
Well said, Art!

An anecdote:  Three and one-half years ago I had the opportunity along with 79
others from around the U.S. to make a three-week visit to the People's Republic
of China.  Representing software engineering folks from around the States, we
were supposedly expected to "open the doors" for further discussion with
our Chinese counterparts.

In retrospect, I was quite annoyed with the "powers that be" whether it
be State or Defense or whomever, that in our pre-visit briefing, nothing
was ever said with reference to what we could and could not discuss.  I
feel rather confident in stating that in all liklihood all 80  of us broke
U.S. law at least once in discussing information which is considered
sensitive and not in the pubic domain.  (F.B.I. - come arrest me!  :-)  )
Quite seriously though, if you were in placed in a similar situation, would
YOU know what you couldn't discuss.  I sure as heck don't.

j.r.     {allegra,sesimo}!rochester!ritcv!jrc