Subject: Re: README: changes to the build system
To: David Maxwell <email@example.com>
From: Jaromir Dolecek <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/14/1999 18:17:03
> On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 10:31:38AM -0500, Jay Maynard wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 11:25:26AM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > > You really, really, really should stop talking about things you don't
> > > have facts on. You'll only confuse lots of people. You're wrong about
> > > the regulations, you're wrong about the current legal environment, and
> > > you're pretty much wrong about everything else.
> > Fine. PROVE IT.
Well, no (direct) prove from me, but:
I do recall lot's of complains of US firms that they can't
export (any) software with crypto.
On the other hand, I do not recall single complain from non-US
firm that they can't import their crypto software into US. However, I
DO recall seeing article about success of some Canadian crypto
company, which sells sw both in US and outside crypto-free world.
AFAIK ITAR is "just" export control law. AFAICS if it would be
import control law, it would violate one of basic contituional rights
- right for privacy.
AFAIK the U.S. court has affirmed the (export controlling) ITAR
violates several sentences of Contitution: under some circumstances,
it limits right for expression (or whatever is the formulation in
Constitution) and something regarding "timely answer from authorities".
The court also considered as wrong the fact a company can't
appeal against regulators' decision.
The case is on it's way to Supreme Court. If even SC would affirm
it, ITAR would have to be more limited (if not dimished) and
explicit. Hopefully they will be fast (the process can be anything
between 6 months and 2 years long) and would withdraw the ITAR
Jaromir Dolecek <email@example.com> http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
"The only way how to get rid temptation is to yield to it." -- Oscar Wilde