Re: CJR returned to sender

[djw@pdcorp.com (Dan Weinstein)]

On Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:05:10 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:

>And yet people like MIT get approval for the release of PGP this way.
>
>It is clear that 
>1) the government will (verbally?) clear the "PGP procedure" when pushed.

Yes, I believe that they have only ever given verbal agreement to this
sort of thing, which is worth the air it is written on.

>2) they need to be pushed.
>
>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only if they are repealed or overturned.

>Publicizing this information would lay the groundwork for APA (or, given
>the way the ITAR is written, maybe no...) and 5th Amendment / due process
>challenges by other parties unable to get the straight answers they
>deserve. 

Their are certainly issues that need to be discussed here, and before
any such discussion can take place we need a determination from the
government as to what sort of verification is adiquite.


Dan Weinstein
djw@pdcorp.com
http://www.earthlink.net/~danjw
PGP public key is available from my Home Page.
All opinions expressed above are mine.

"I understand by 'freedom of Spirit' something quite definite -
the unconditional will to say No, where it is dangerous to say
No.        
           Friedrich Nietzsche