At 4:08 PM -0700 9/25/97, John Smith wrote:

...

From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net> J. Random Hotmail User, you'd better learn to read the text of the bills you so blithely think are OK.

Well, I read the text of the bill, and here is part of what it says:

Congratulations on now having read the bill you endorse earlier today. You should have read it before endorsing it. Now you are apparently grasping at straws to reinforce the conclusions you have already reached, that SAFE is a good bill and will let Ian and others freely export their products. As for quoting just one section, there is always danger in this. For one thing, the paragraphs preceeding the ones you quote say: "Subject to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), the Secretary shall have exclusive authority to control exports of all computer hard ware, software, and technology for information security (including encryption), except that which is specifically designed, or modified for military use, including command, control, and intelligence applications." Paragraph (3) is the one which imposes a standard for export which is quite opposite the "no license" you apparently believe is the overriding paragraph.

`(2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES- No validated license may be required, except pursuant to the Trading With The Enemy Act or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (but only to the extent that the authority of such Act is not exercised to extend controls imposed under this Act), for the export or reexport of--

`(A) any software, including software with encryption capabilities--

`(i) that is generally available, as is, and is designed for installation by the purchaser; or

`(ii) that is in the public domain for which copyright or other protection is not available under title 17, United States Code, or that is available to the public because it is generally accessible to the interested public in any form;

This sounds like it should cover the kind of crypto that we are talking about and that Ian Goldberg does. It is generally available and installable by the purchaser (it's free) and it is in the public domain and generally accessible to the interested public, etc. And see, there are no export licenses for this.

And you interpret Paragraph (3) in which way? Even if Paragraph (3) did not exist, the allusion to the Trading With The Enemy Act (which leads to the Munitions Act and the ITARs and, now, EARs) and the Emergency Economic Powers Act would pretty much ensure that the Feds could and would use SAFE to halt exports of a product they believed would compromise national security, tax collection capabilities, etc.

There is another part that has the stuff you were talking about re "diversion" and terrorism, but that is separate. It is for software that is not generally accessible and installable by the purchaser and all that. More specialized stuff, like custom packages. But cypherpunks software is for everybody, and this bill should make it free to export.

Nonsense. Read the _entire_ text. Also read Declan's June article, which he just sent to the list today. The debate is not about export of "custom packages." Ask RSADSI. Ask Netscape. Ask PGP Inc. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."