Re: votelink - some discussions on Phil Z & ITAR

[Scott Brickner <sjb@austin.ibm.com>]

aba@atlas.ex.ac.uk writes
>They were alarmed by the implication that their WWW server now
>contained PGP code which they did not feel qualified to judge the
>implications, or correctness of.  This prompted the posting to the
>forum of a rather worried sounding disclaimer by a votelink
>representative, to the effect that they were abiding by the Prodigy
>ruling, and so felt unable to remove the offending piece of ITAR
>breakage, and yet felt rather unconfortable with it's presence.

Interesting reaction, if I understand it rightly... "We're afraid
that having less than two tenths of a percent of PGP on our system
causes us to violate ITAR, but we're also afraid to remove it because
it may constitute 'moderation' of the discussion and thereby open us
to liability."