[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.

To: Simon Spero <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.
From: Scott Brickner <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:54:18 -0600
Cc: Rich Salz <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 14 Nov 1995 12:08:31 PST.) <Pine.SOL.3.91.951114115921.17855A-100000@chivalry>
Sender: [email protected]

Simon Spero writes:
>The interesting question is how narrow the interface has to be before it 
>becomes in violation of the ITAR. Is the key question whether the "holes" 
>are specifically designed for the insertion of cryptographic materials, 
>or is it the fact that they could be used to support cryptographic 
>enhancements?

If the ban *is* due to Category XIII (b) (5), the wording would
indicate that the "hole" must be "specifically designed or modified" to
support crypto.  One that was specifically designed to support some
sort of block compression library should be exempt under that
paragraph, even if someone else were to write and distribute a crypto
library with an identical interface.

'Course, IANAL, and the interpreters of the ITAR don't really seem to
care what it *says*, anyway.

References:
- Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.
  - From: Simon Spero <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [NOISE] Credit Card security in the New York Times
Next by Date: Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.
Prev by thread: Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.
Next by thread: Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread