Re: Can the inevitability of Software privacy be used to defeat the ITAR?
At 12:30 AM 7/12/96, jim bell wrote:
Look what happened when MIT put PGP on the Web: "Nothing."
Go back an read Hal Abelson's message of just a few days ago. MIT may lose out on a large contract with Sandia becuase of their publishing of a _book_ containing PGP code. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
Go back an read Hal Abelson's message of just a few days ago. MIT may lose out on a large contract with Sandia becuase of their publishing of a _book_ containing PGP code.
This isn't quite analogous to the original problem of a software company making good-faith efforts to prevent a program from being exported. AFAIK, MIT did not try to prevent the book from being exported (of course, the State Department never did approve or deny their request to export the book). Sandia could claim that MIT came very close to violating ITAR, but the same claim could not be made if the issue was a software program which was export-controlled. - -- Mark =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= markm@voicenet.com | finger -l for PGP key 0xe3bf2169 http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ | d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348 "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." --George Orwell, _1984_ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMeaGe7Zc+sv5siulAQFlSAP6Aw58y4rg9Bk93ru2kw5RzmLVX3KvNKbY Pie33MR+NT0FB6C7deUEru7pHQVsRkOFAgLIwqiltSFa7MtpxCEySHRguOWxg7yf u1bANeZ1Snrm2cwo72KLH9utgSE+JwaKW2MSLADHnPUQUbUnE45lY2qx9LcmNvcz 43t14d8RhC4= =zUl/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hey folks, let's be real clear about this: The ITAR do NOT apply to books. Repeat: The ITAR do NOT apply to books. On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Mark M. wrote: [...]
This isn't quite analogous to the original problem of a software company making good-faith efforts to prevent a program from being exported. AFAIK, MIT did not try to prevent the book from being exported (of course, the State Department never did approve or deny their request to export the book). Sandia
State told Karn that it did not have jurisdiction over books.
could claim that MIT came very close to violating ITAR, but the same claim
"The ITAR do not apply to books"
could not be made if the issue was a software program which was export-controlled.
A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's hot here. And humid.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Michael Froomkin wrote:
Hey folks, let's be real clear about this:
The ITAR do NOT apply to books.
Repeat:
The ITAR do NOT apply to books.
I'm quite aware of this fact, and I never did say that ITAR did apply to books. I just noted that a claim that MIT came _very close_ to violating ITAR by publishing a book with complete source code in OCR'able text is more legitimate than a claim against a software company that makes a good faith effort to prevent a crypto program from being exported. - -- Mark =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= markm@voicenet.com | finger -l for PGP key 0xe3bf2169 http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ | d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348 "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." --George Orwell, _1984_ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMecGkbZc+sv5siulAQH1VQQAh26lrtY9HAr3r4xrf/ZeyXZZ2QZbzOp6 Tjz6yjH+PH78pET0Egjd+QppuLXVxilukY2A2k8c/SNtzHjVX37HvmOT08xRwEi+ cUn9OwJ6QEGYtNe3iPyeLFRklkt0O283LX11CBrXSp3t052BgqaZyEtHn+G5M3dd X8G7hkphtis= =8vbw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael Froomkin writes: : : Hey folks, let's be real clear about this : : : The ITAR do NOT apply to books. : : Repeat : : : The ITAR do NOT apply to books. The only trouble with this claim is that it does not conform to the language of the ITAR or with the whimsical practices of the Office of Defense Trade Controls. There is no exception for books, except for those that are in the public domain because they are sold in book stores and at newstands or are found in libraries, and the ODT insists that one cannot put a book into the public domain by putting it into the public domain or by selling it in a bookstore. : State told Karn that it did not have jurisdiction over books. Not quite. They decided in their unreviewable discretion that they would not exercise jurisdiction over a particular book, but such decisions are made on a case by case basis, based on no established criteria, and are without any precedental value. In fact, in some of the material filed in the Karn case the representative of the ODT said that waiving jurisdiction over that book of software may have been a mistake, and that in the future they might have to come to a different decision. In the Karn case the ODT did make a distinction between a book and a CDrom; but that it what makes their decision nonsensical. The only problem was that the decision was held to be unreviewable. : "The ITAR do not apply to books" They do to. (Unless one takes the position, which the ODT would not agree with, that the ITAR do not apply to the means of communicating information.) That's why they violate the first amendment. Or is the idea that they only apply to articles? (That would certainly give a new meaning to the phrase ``defense articles''.) -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
I wrote: : : The ITAR do NOT apply to books. : : The only trouble with this claim is that it does not conform to the : language of the ITAR or with the whimsical practices of the Office of : Defense Trade Controls. There is no exception for books, except for : those that are in the public domain because they are sold in book stores : and at newstands or are found in libraries, and the ODT insists that one : cannot put a book into the public domain by putting it into the public : domain or by selling it in a bookstore. Whereas I meant to say: : cannot put a book into the public domain by putting it into _a : library_ or by selling it in a bookstore. I hope that this did not cause any confusion. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
At 5:49 AM -0700 7/14/96, Peter D. Junger wrote:
I wrote:
: : The ITAR do NOT apply to books. : : The only trouble with this claim is that it does not conform to the : language of the ITAR or with the whimsical practices of the Office of : Defense Trade Controls. There is no exception for books, except for : those that are in the public domain because they are sold in book stores : and at newstands or are found in libraries, and the ODT insists that one : cannot put a book into the public domain by putting it into the public : domain or by selling it in a bookstore.
Whereas I meant to say:
: cannot put a book into the public domain by putting it into _a : library_ or by selling it in a bookstore.
I hope that this did not cause any confusion.
Let's see if I understood what you said. Is "a" the operative word--that is, are you telling us that a book is in the public domain if it is widely sold in bookstores or held in libraries, but that you can't put it in the public domain by selling it in one bookstore or depositing it in one library? If so how many are enough? If not, please clarify further. Thanks; David
participants (5)
-
David Sternlight -
Mark M. -
Michael Froomkin -
Peter D. Junger -
tcmay@got.net