|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: 15 Aug 92 02:40:15 GMT From: trier@odin.ins.cwru.edu (Stephen C. Trier) To: kerberos@shelby.Stanford.EDU In article <9208150147.AA08319@easynet.crl.dec.com> kaufman@kibitz.enet.dec.com (Charlie Kaufman) writes: >Does anyone have any idea how they get away with it? I'd settle for >caveated theories. You might want to read the July Communications of the ACM. It includes several articles on cryptography, including the proposed U.S. standard Digital Signature Standard and U.S. export restrictions on cryptography. The "Viewpoint" column in this issue, written by William H. Murray, explains that the regulations in cryptography are specified by the International Traffic in Arms Regulation of 1943, the Invention Secrecy Act of 1940, and the National Security Act of 1947. According to the column, the ITAR defines all cryptographic equipment and software to be munitions and therefore subject to export licensing by the State Department. -- Stephen Trier "I am not a lawyer, though I play one Network Services Engineering on the net." CWRU IRIS/INS/Telecom Chris Torek, torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov trier@ins.cwru.edu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |