On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 06:17:03PM +0200, Jaromir Dolecek wrote:
> 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.

ITAR, under the section of the US Code (what Congress passes, not what the
regulatory agencies adopt) that authorizes it, regulates both import and
export. As it turns out, though, the Department of State has punted
regulation of importing munitions to the Department of the Treasury. I'm
still looking for a copy of 31 CFR 505, the regulations governing such
imports.

It further happens that crypto software has been removed from the munitions
list anyway. Regulation of crypto software has passed to the Department of
Commerce, which doesn't do import restrictions at all.

I was wrong, and I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

> 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.

Unfortunately, this only applies in those states served by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Other appeals courts have ruled the other way.

> 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
> nonsence^?^?^?^?^?^?^?^?law.

This is my hope as well, at least as it applies to software.

(I went and read the web page posted here; facts always outweigh flamage in
getting me to change an opinion.)