I wrote: [some dense, ambiguous prose] Jim writes:
Pardon me if I misunderstood your point. I haven't read the whole bill, but I read the "regardless" phrase with a different emphasis. In short, that language appears to mean that one could be pounded with RICO for uploading crypto software even if the crypto is EXPORTABLE.
The part about subsequent instances of actual access to non-exportable crypto by foreigners, etc. appears to address a different situation -- the situation where the crypto is non-exportable. [...]
That's exactly my reading of both parts, more lucidly expressed, so I guess my point wasn't clear before :)
It is unclear, not having read the entire bill, whether the onerous provision in the case of non-exportable crypto would apply in the case of exportable crypto.
Right -- that's the possible ambiguity I was trying to bring out.
This email is academic speculation. This email is not legal advice, is not a consultation with counsel, and does not create an attorney- client relationship. (As a condition of entering into an attorney- client relationship, I require a formal, ink-signed fee agreement.)
(Ditto, except that I require some years of law school too ;) -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>