[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Exporting software doesn't mean exporting (was: Re: lp ?)
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Exporting software doesn't mean exporting (was: Re: lp ?)
- From: [email protected]
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:53:13 -0800
- Comments: This message is NOT from the person listed in the Fromline. It is from an automated software remailing service operating atthat address.THE PORTAL SYSTEM DOES NOT CONDONE OR APPROVE OF THE CONTENTS OF THISPOSTING. Please report problem mail to <[email protected]>.
- Sender: [email protected]
On Fri, 10 Nov 1995, Peter D. Junger wrote:
> In any case, I want to thank him for doing so, because it brought home
> to me the important fact that it is possible that the ITAR provisions
> relating to cryptographic software could be struck down, not because
> they violate the first amendment, or would violate it if passed by
> congress, and not because the court is trying to dodge the difficult
> first amendment issue, but simply because the provisions are not
> authorized by any legislation.
Hmmm, Peter actually has me worried. I actually _understood_ what he was
talking about. And that has me worried.
I guess that reviewing all that LIBOR financing documentation over ten
years ago, when I was extending a helping hand to the CIBC helped. No one
should ever attempt to figure out what happens when you have an American
highrise owned by a private Canadian citizen, go into receivership with a
syndicated Euro-financing while attempting a head lease to AT&T.
An experience like that leaves you scarred for life. You actually learn
to grok "lawyer speak".
I guess that an interesting follow up occurs, if I perhaps muddy the
chrystal clear waters of Peter's analysis. It relates to another thread
on this list, the thread on time-release crypto and the economics of
A hypothetical which might clarify by making things murky.
If I ... as a foreign citizen ... a Canadian ... were to release an
algorithm for time-release crypto to another Canadian ... another
foreigner, could I actually be hauled down by the scruff of my neck to
face US style "justice". Could I be deprived of our Canadian traditions of
Napoleonic Code and of British Common Law, to face Americanism's.
Does anyone from State have any clarification of this policy-shift??
I find it ridiculous to hear that if I load a series of messages into a
fax machine, and instruct that machine to send out a series of documents
at some set point in time -- and that if I were to *communicate* this
method of time delay cryptographically secure communication to another
Canadian citizen, that I could actually be hauled out of my own country
and dragged across an international border to face charges of treason
against a state to which I have no allegiance.
This would be laughable, if it weren't so sinister. I mean, it's only a
FAX machine ... for goodness sake's.
Here I am as a Canadian citizen, a citizen of a sovereign State, a state
which has historically been a friend of the American people. A State
which has actually sacrificed its own international stature and the
security of its citizens, to benefit Americans. (Most notably, when
Canada rescued the hostages in Iran) and America repays the citizens of
Ambassador Ken Taylor's home town how?? With an implied threat of making
them subject to US law because its administratively convenient?
Can't anyone find acts of treason, a little closer to home??
Domestically maybe ... possibly even right under your nose ...
> It's too far off topic to pursue any further, but I must take
> exception to the suggestion that we are well served by separation of
> powers intruding into other legal domains. Bowsher tells us that
> causation principles go out the window in SOP cases. That alone
> makes it radioactive.
You ain't whistling Dixie.
> I must admit that I don't know what it is that he is refering to.
Alice de 'nonymous ...
...just another one of those...
P.S. This post is in the public domain.
C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.