[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fw: Re: ITAR satellite provision
On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:
> At 08:09 PM 10/4/96 +0000, The Deviant wrote:
> >On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >[...]
> >> "A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching of such
> >> vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this subchapter."
> >>
> >> Focus on "by reason of launching of such vehicle,"
> >>
> >> Launching a vehicle alone is not export. It takes more than launch to
> >> make it an export. More than the launching is not much.
> >[...]
> >> --
> >> I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >
> >So.. if I were to take PGP, put it on a floppy disk, tape it to a model
> >rocket, and launch it across the mexican border, that's not exporting it
> >(although the FAA might complain)?
>
>
> That's _my_ interpretation. I look at it this way: Missile launches can
>
> 1. Return to the country of origin.
> 2. Splash down in International waters.
> 3. land on foreign soil.
> 4. Orbit for awhile and land "somewhere."
> 5. Orbit essentially forever.
> 6. Go somewhere in space other than an earth orbit.
>
> All this stuff is obvious to the people who wrote the regulation. In
> addition, it is not necessarily certain which of these outcomes will occur
> in any given launch. The terminology in the rule above does not
> distinguish any of these outcomes. In the absense of further clarification,
> it is logical to conclude that which particular route the missile
> subsequently takes is irrelevant to the applicability of the exception.
>
> This is particularly true, since the writers of that regulation were free to
> add clarification should they have chosen to do so. Further, that they
> DIDN'T "clarify" is logical, because if the outcome of any given missile may
> be uncertain, and assuming that this regulation was written as a
> mutual-suck-up maneuver between government and industry, it is reasonable to
> assume that the regulation would be interpretated to immunize the launcher
> regardless of the launch's outcome. One can reasonably suppose that
> Rockwell wouldn't want to be declared in violation of ITAR simply because
> the second stage of a rocket failed and dropped a crypto-carrying satellite
> onto China.
I could make a practice around you alone if I were disposed to take
malpractice cases and if you had a license to practice law.
>
> Jim Bell
> [email protected]
>
--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
[email protected]