Re: unSAFE

[John Horton <jehorton@erols.com>]

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 01:04:17 -0400
> From: Michael Sims <jellicle@inch.com>
> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
> Cc: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>, abd@cdt.org, Tim May <tcmay@got.net>,
>     declan@well.com
> Subject: unSAFE
> 
> Well, I've read Mr. Davidson's defense of the SAFE bill and of course
> Mr. May's earlier argument against it.  A few more comments.
> 
<deleted to save space> 
> 
> Although about the Clipper chip, if you go about 60% through the
> article he has a solid discussion of the EAA, IEEPA and the
> presidential power thereunder.  It's 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 and
> following.  Section 1702 there has the meat of it.
> 
> This Act allows the President, once he has declared a state of
> emergency, to regulate essentially any commerce with another nation,
> except those items directly identified as "speech" - magazines,
> papers, etc.
>

I am not an expert in these matters, but one could argue that electronic
communications is a form of speech, and that the use of the internet is
an implementation mechanism of free speech that correlates to media such
as magazines and papers, etc.  Perhaps this is why the net as a form of
electronic commerce is giving global governments regulatory fits.  The
laws were written with regard to tangible forms of media versus media in
the electronic age.

I would recommend that a watchful eye be cast about to monitor any
attempts at changes to the items identified as "speech" in the USC
sections outlined above, especially given the recent judicial decision
regarding the illegality of ITAR with respect to cryptographic systems.

> 
> President Clinton has twice declared a state of emergency regarding
> export control regulations, the latest on August 15, 1996.
<deleted to save space> 
>

Perhaps a worthy endeavor is to attempt a modification to the Trading
with the Enemies Act, given "global peace and stability" presently at
hand.