Re: Exporting software doesn't mean exporting (was: Re: lp ?)

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>]

"Peter D. Junger" writes:
> : I understand that you are a lawyer and I'm not, but it is my
> : understanding that international treaties come in to play on this sort
> : of thing. For instance, in international shipments, you can transship
> : items and substances that are illegal to possess in a country through
> : its ports provided that the materials do not originate or terminate
> : their shipment in the country and remain sealed in their containers
> : throughout. It is also my understanding that items like mail and phone
> : calls that happen to transit a country are not necessarily subject to
> : that nations laws provided that the nation is not a terminal point for
> : the mail or call or what have you.
> 
> The trouble is that the ITAR's definition of export that is relevant
> to cryptographic software has nothing to do with exporting in the
> normal sense, and therefore it has nothing to do with transhipments.

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.

Perry