Karn case challenging crypto rules -- oral arguments online

[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>]

I've placed my notes from and a report on last Friday's Karn crypto-
hearing online in the "Afterword" section of netlynews.com. (Incidentally,
Netly relaunched yesterday. Stop by and check it out). 

The oral arguments were a battle of metaphors: is the text of a
cryptographic algorithm more like a tank guidance system or a
Shakespearean sonnet? At one point Judge Williams compared a floppy disk
to "a machine." 

Judge Ginsberg is known as somewhat of a libertarian, a fellow who home
schools his child; he was considered for a Supreme Court seat until
reports of marijuana use derailed his bid. Judge Williams is a
conservative and a bit of a First Amendment purist -- at least in
traditional media. I think it was Williams who (correctly) dissented in
the _Turner_ "must carry" cable broadcasting case.

-Declan

---

Full text at "Afterword" -- http://netlynews.com/

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Karn v. U.S. Department of State
January 10, 1997

Ken Bass, attorney for Phil Karn: The government says this diskette
cannot be exported. Period. They claim to make an argument that even
though it is identical information, it's worth restricting this
diskette... We submit that it is an arbitrary, capricious, and totally
irrational decision for the government to draw such a distinction...

Judge Ginsberg: Can the courts evaluate the military and security
distinction between the disks and the book?

Bass: The Supreme Court said it can. The mere intimation of national
security is not some talismanic trump card.

Judge Ginsberg: But that's not what they're doing. They're putting
something on the munitions list. In what way can we say that's not
significant militarily?

Bass: Courts are not incompetent to review decisions to see if they're
irrational...

[...]