Declan McCullagh wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 01:04:17 -0400 From: Michael Sims <jellicle@inch.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Cc: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>, abd@cdt.org, Tim May <tcmay@got.net>, declan@well.com Subject: unSAFE
Well, I've read Mr. Davidson's defense of the SAFE bill and of course Mr. May's earlier argument against it. A few more comments.
<deleted to save space>
Although about the Clipper chip, if you go about 60% through the article he has a solid discussion of the EAA, IEEPA and the presidential power thereunder. It's 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 and following. Section 1702 there has the meat of it.
This Act allows the President, once he has declared a state of emergency, to regulate essentially any commerce with another nation, except those items directly identified as "speech" - magazines, papers, etc.
I am not an expert in these matters, but one could argue that electronic communications is a form of speech, and that the use of the internet is an implementation mechanism of free speech that correlates to media such as magazines and papers, etc. Perhaps this is why the net as a form of electronic commerce is giving global governments regulatory fits. The laws were written with regard to tangible forms of media versus media in the electronic age. I would recommend that a watchful eye be cast about to monitor any attempts at changes to the items identified as "speech" in the USC sections outlined above, especially given the recent judicial decision regarding the illegality of ITAR with respect to cryptographic systems.
President Clinton has twice declared a state of emergency regarding export control regulations, the latest on August 15, 1996.
<deleted to save space>
Perhaps a worthy endeavor is to attempt a modification to the Trading with the Enemies Act, given "global peace and stability" presently at hand.