[43056] in Cypherpunks
Re: Exporting software doesn't mean exporting (was: Re: lp ?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perry E. Metzger)
Tue Nov 7 13:01:13 1995
To: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu>
Cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Nov 1995 08:03:35 EST."
<m0tCngd-0004JWC@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 12:53:38 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
"Peter D. Junger" writes:
> : Where the hell did you get that idea? [that the ITAR applies to
> : foreigners abroad].
>
> >From Section 120.17 of the ITAR which provides:
>
> _Export_ means:
>
> . . . .
>
> (4) Disclosing (including oral or visual disclosure) or transfering
> technical data to a foreign person, whether in the United States or
> abroad . . . .
That can't possibly be considered under U.S. law to apply to
foreigners talking to foreigners abroad, and if you are really a
lawyer you should know that the mere fact that the law doesn't mention
its jurisdiction doesn't make it unlimited. The statutes of New York
State say that I can be prosecuted for running a red light. No where
at all do they say that the red light must be in New York State, but I
suspect that it would be completely impossible for the NY State
attorney general to get any court, in New York State or elsewhere, to
hear a case that I violated New York law by running a light in
Turkmenistan.
> Go read the section that I quoted again. Where is there an exception
> for foreign persons who happen to be abroad?
Do you actually call yourself a lawyer?
You appear to be ignorant of the most basic facts of our legal system
-- knowledge that I, as a complete layman, am completely comfortable
with. I wouldn't pretend to be able to practice law, but even I can
smell utterly insane readings of the regulations.
Perry
