Re: National Security Committee amendments to SAFE

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 2:24 PM -0700 9/17/97, Ben Cox wrote:
>Carl Ellison says:
>>>Decisions made by the Secretary of Commerce with the concurrence of the
>>>Secretary of Defense with respect to exports of encryption products under
>>>this section shall not be subject to judicial review.
>>
>>I take it this last sentence is intended to kill Bernstein, Karn and Junger
>>and any other cases we might try to bring.  Correct?
>
>How could that possibly be binding?  Anything the court system thinks is
>subject to judicial review is subject to judicial review.

To all responding to Carl's comments, we talked about this last week.

It is clear that the law cannot preclude Supreme Court rule, of the law
itself. It is also likely that any particular target of the surveillance
could challenge the basic constitutionality of the law.

Cf. last week's traffic on Cypherpunks.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."