[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Exporting software doesn't mean exporting (was: Re: lp ?)
"Perry E. Metzger" writes:
: I am starting to have trouble believing you are a lawyer. Are you
: actually telling me that treaties which explicitly indemnify
: transshipment customers against local laws are superceeded by lower
: level laws, in spite of the supremecy clause of the constitution? That
: might be what the state department would tell you, but I'd have
: trouble believing even a lobotomized mongoloid judge would let that
: stand. Treaties are treaties, period.
What I am telling you, if you would pay attention, is that there is no
transhipment involved. The violation of the ITAR consists of
disclosing information, not shipment.
And that is pretty clearly unconstitutional because it violates the
first amendment, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with any
treaties--certainly nothing to do with treaties about transhipment.
If a Frenchman on vacation in the Riviera shows a copy of PGP sourcecode
to a German businessman there, that is literally a violation of the
ITAR. If the disclosure is made by sending a copy of the software from
one hotel room to another, and if that message happens to get routed
through the United States, that is still a violation. The fact that the
message went through the United States is irrelevant.
Don't expect the ITAR to make any sense. And don't think that you can
apply logic to the ITAR and get logical results. It doesn't work that
way.
--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
Internet: [email protected] [email protected]