[43016] in Cypherpunks
Re: Exporting software doesn't mean exporting (was: Re: lp ?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perry E. Metzger)
Mon Nov 6 23:33:44 1995
To: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu>
Cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Nov 1995 22:28:27 EST."
<m0tCewB-0004JWC@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 23:05:56 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
"Peter D. Junger" writes:
> "Perry E. Metzger" writes:
>
> : I am starting to have trouble believing you are a lawyer. Are you
> : actually telling me that treaties which explicitly indemnify
> : transshipment customers against local laws are superceeded by lower
> : level laws, in spite of the supremecy clause of the constitution? That
> : might be what the state department would tell you, but I'd have
> : trouble believing even a lobotomized mongoloid judge would let that
> : stand. Treaties are treaties, period.
>
> What I am telling you, if you would pay attention, is that there is no
> transhipment involved. The violation of the ITAR consists of
> disclosing information, not shipment.
Given that it is a non-U.S. national disclosing information to a
non-U.S. national, both being outside the U.S.'s borders, with their
only involvement with the U.S. being an incidental traversal of their
communications via U.S. telecoms networks, I would say that it would
be a case where the telecoms treaties would come into play.
> If a Frenchman on vacation in the Riviera shows a copy of PGP sourcecode
> to a German businessman there, that is literally a violation of the
> ITAR.
Where the hell did you get that idea? The ITAR clearly does not apply
to foreigners disclosing things to each other outside the United
States. I've read it and I can't see how it could possibly be so
interpreted. I'm not a lawyer, but this interpretation is so bizarre
as to be almost untenable. I can clearly see that a U.S. person
talking about DES to a foreign person can be a violation under the
language in the regulations, but there is no way on earth to interpret
the regulations as applying to foreigners abroad talking to other
foreigners outside the U.S.
> Don't expect the ITAR to make any sense. And don't think that you can
> apply logic to the ITAR and get logical results. It doesn't work that
> way.
I was under the impression, though, that the words meant what they
said.
Perry
