At 07:17 AM 10/3/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Remo Pini wrote:
* A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching * of such vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this * subchapter. Okay, everybody, call Estes! We've got some crypto to export...er...laun ch! If I get the above wording correctly (unicorn, help me!), it is sufficient to put the cryptostuff on a disc in a LAUNCHABLE device, it never says that
Date: Thu Oct 03 08:08:42 1996 the payload has to be delivered by air. So, just put that thing in a bag and get it through customs... (or does "by reason of ..." mean that the exclusive means of export allowed is launching ?)
The launching alone will not cause it to be an export. If it is launched and then ends up outside the U.S., it could be an export. Certainly if it is launched with the purpose of exporting crypto, it will be an export.
Too bad you didn't support this with a logical argument. The wording was clearly intended to be an exception to a rule. What the wording doesn't include is the "exception to the exception," most likely because they weren't thinking in too great a detail when they wrote the regulations. But if the regulation is "wrong," the fault of that is those who wrote the regulation. (and we, the public, are entitled to assume that the regulation is "right" in its literal meaning.) It appears that the government left a loophole so large that you could drive a truck...er...shoot a rocket through it. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com