At 11:39 AM 10/3/96 -0400, Mullen Patrick wrote:
This may (will?) limit the products which are produced by large corporations, as their need for a single, globally distributable product is respected. However, smaller companies who have neither the desire nor finances to distribute their product on a global scale will be unaffected. Shareware/ freeware products will also be unaffected (unless someone from another country pulls it off a website, or similar means).
However, all of this is irrelevant, because I must say, Tim May has the proper idea -- We may have the right to bear crypto, but the government has the right to limit the types/amounts of crypto we bear.
** Success in this matter is classifying crypto as speech ** Patrick
While I agree we shouldn't push the crypto/arms connection, on the other hand I think we can push BACK: If the government tries to equate crypto with arms,take the position that while we disagree with this equation, to the extent the government is using it, it must take the good with the bad and accept the "keep and bear arms" interpretation literally. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com