[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ITAR satellite provision
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:
> The wording was
> clearly intended to be an exception to a rule. What the wording doesn't
> include is the "exception to the exception," most likely because they
> weren't thinking in too great a detail when they wrote the regulations.
Yow. The "if we put it in a rocket it's exportable" interpretation made me
think twice before posting the text of that definition, because it's
seductive and wrong. I posted it because it's amusing to think about and
because we all had a good laugh about it at the Mac crypto conference; but
I'd feel like a jerk if someone got themselves in a lot of trouble with an
enthusiastic misreading of that sentence out of pages and pages of
regulations (plus quite a few more pages of opinions interpreting those
regulations).
> It appears that the government left a loophole so large that you could
> drive a truck...er...shoot a rocket through it.
If you think you've found an enormous loophole in a regulation which has
been around for 15-20 years, you should double-check your research and get
a good nights' sleep. Law is like science this way - if you think you have
found room-temperature fusion you should stop and check your work. It's
much more likely that you're not reading carefully or you've missed something.
--
Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends,
[email protected] | but they fuck with our heads."
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |
|