Re: CJR returned to sender

[hallam@w3.org]

Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net> writes:
>Dan Weinstein writes:
[unknown writes:]
>>>If anyone from MIT is reading this, it would be a real public service to 
>>>put on a web site (a) what the system used for the release of PGP is 
>>>exactly and (b) what assurances (oral, written, names & dates) was 
>>>received from State/Commerce that this was legal.
>>
>>You are assuming that because the government has chosen not to
>>prosecute MIT that they will not prosecute anyone else.  This is a
>>faulty assumption, laws are not invalidated if they are not enforced,
>>only if they are repealed or overturned.

>From what I have been told the NSA have never squeaked about the PGP server.
No correspondence whatsoever. But then again MIT has some pretty meaty
lawyers and never gives in to nuisance suits (they recently paid $2 million
to fight one). Besides I doubt the head of the CIA would be too happy with
the NSA if they went of beating up MIT. NCSA got pretty well beaten up however.

I think that at the moment they are far to wound up trying to hope the Zimmerman 
case goes away that they want to start another.

Its simply a bunch of beureacrats looking to keep their jobs after the war. Each 
time someone in congress yelps more money for "defence" you get more of those 
people. They now have to justify their pay packet. Before too long someone will 
clue in on a way to save 150 million a year. Actually they have done already but 
it takes a while for things to happen. What do you expect? The US constitution 
is not designed to create an efficient government, its meant to stop them 
getting much done.

		Phill