[regarding suggestion that netscape give mit or someone a 128 bit version to place on an ftp server]
This is not an apology for the the ITAR, just my usual lawyerly overcaution:
Suppose A gives B a program that is export controlled, intending for B to allow it to be exported. Has A conspired with B to export the program?
Let's ask the grand jury investigating Phil....
That's a possible problem, I suppose, but wouldn't you be protected if your license agreement with MIT (or whoever) specified redistribution "for domestic use only"?
"protected"? No. "Helped"? Yes. The government can argue to the jury that the agreement was a sham and you knew it....
(Great, I'm about to argue law with a REAL LAWYER (tm). And they promised me that Cypherpunks wouldn't cause brain damage ... ) OK, suppose A does NOT intend for B to export it, and he does anyway ... Now suppose that instead of giving it to B, he SELLS it to him ... So a pirated copy of the commercial version of Netscape's Navigator shows up in a Hong Kong flea market, and Barksdale goes to jail ... (Members of the jury, Mr. Barksdale MUST have known that one of his millions of paying customers would export that dangerous munition ...) The logical ludicrousness of ITAR shows up fast no matter which angle you look at it from, and yet the people with the <exonized for your protection> to actually challenge it aren't the big companies who stand to gain the most financially, it's a bunch of guys (a lot of whom hang around here sometimes) who are successfully giving away 'export controlled' software, while the people with the resources to really fight this thing sit on the sidelines waiting for Phil Zimmerman or Phil Karn to get them off the hook so they can go and make a lot of money. It seems to me that there's something very wrong with this picture, and while I don't mean this in any way to be taken personally, one of the big things I see as wrong is overcautious lawyers. -- Jeff Simmons jsimmons@goblin.punk.net