I think that's about right. One of the important questions was how broadly Patel would rule, whether her ruling would apply just to Bernstein & associates or whether she would enjoin the government from enforcing ITAR/EAR at all. Unfortunately, she chose the former. But look on the bright side: her narrow decision may be less likely to be reversed, no? -Declan On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Jonathan Wienke wrote:
Patel barred the government from "threatening, detaining, prosecuting, discouraging, or otherwise interfering with" anyone "who uses, discusses, or publishes or seeks to use, discuss or publish plaintiff's encryption programs and related materials." Daniel Bernstein, now a math professor at the University of Illinois, filed the lawsuit with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
So if someone posts a few lines of source code to coderpunks, the government reserves the right to prosecute, unless the poster's name is Daniel Bernstein, and the algorithm is Snuffle 5.0. The judge seems to be saying "I think Bernstein's case has merit, so I will order the government to stop hassling him, but since I am too chickenbleep to challenge the unconstitutional usurpation of power on the part of Clinton, Congress, the State Dept., and the Dept. of Commerce, I will pass the buck and let the issue be decided on appeal." The decision seems to be a step in the right direction, but a VERY small one.