[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no bill




                          CORRECTED MESSAGE

[Adam Back has pointed out that I made a stupid mistake when I sent the
original version of this message, in that I failed before sending it to
delete some code, which Declan McCullagh had included in his message, as
I had intended.  I cannot reconstruct exactly how I came to make this
mistake, but suspect that it had to do with the fact that at the time I
sent it I was rushing to get to class and was having difficulty both
with my connection to my office machine and with my monitor, which tends
to flicker badly when someone uses a hair dryer or something like that
in the building where I live.

Here is what I had intended to send.  Please correct your records
accordingly.  I regret any inconvenience my mistake may have caused.]

------Text of Corrected Message

Adam Back writes:

: 
: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]> writes:
: > 
: > I was talking to someone after a law class this evening (we're covering
: > electronic privacy topics, but unfortunately we're not at crypto yet). He
: > suggested widespread civil disobedience. 
: 
: Might I suggest using RSA in perl:
 
[Adam Back's code for RSA in perl is deleted (but you can find it at 
<http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/> and in Declan's original message).] 
 
: which is now officially non-exportable (as reported by Peter Junger;
: he asked for serveral code examples and this one was one of the
: non-exportable ones).  Short enough to make them look silly, short
: enough that most people don't have qualms about quoting, or using as a
: .sig.  And they've committed themselves in writing to Peter Junger
: that you're not allowed to export it.

For the classification by the commerce department of the programs that
my Legal Attack Team submitted, and for the applications, see
<http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/comp_law/jvd/index.html>.  

It is unlikely that we will be seeking further classifications in
connection with my suit, but it might be an interesting and useful
project---not involving civil disobedience---for some of you.  It
would be interesting to see exactly which encryption programs the
bureaucrats classify as encryption programs, and which they don't.
It would also be interesting to see if they give the same
classifications in response to requests by those who are not suing
them.

I must, however, warn you that it is not an easy project.  It cannot
be done by e-mail and you have to get numbered forms from Commerce
Department on which the applications must be submitted.  In fact,
the difficulty of applying for a classification or a license is one of
the many reasons for concluding that the export restrictions on
cryptography violate the United States Constitution.  

It would certainly be helpful if it turned out that that Commerce
cannot or will not respond promptly to classification requests made by
would-be publishers of cryptographic software who are neither
commercial publishers nor suing to enjoin the enforcement of the 
regulations.
 
--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
 EMAIL: [email protected]    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu   
     NOTE: [email protected] no longer exists