Re: Why no version of SAFE removes export ctrls, and all are dangerous
Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>: Sure, removing export controls completely would benefit everyone, but SAFE doesn't go that far: Only software "that is generally available" overseas may be exported. Which means if I invent a new data-scrambling method that nobody overseas has developed, I'm screwed. This is wrong. I quoted the part earlier removing restrictions on generally available software. Here is what they say about that: "(A) the term 'generally available' means, in the case of software (including software with encryption capabilities), software that is offered for sale, license, or transfer to any person without restriction, whether or not for consideration, including, but not limited to, over-the-counter retail sales, mail order transactions, phone order transactions, electronic distribution, or sale on approval; There's nothing about it having to be available overseas. You are probably confusing it with the hardware part: "(4) HARDWARE WITH ENCRYPTION CAPABILITIES. -- The Secretary shall authorize the export or reexport of computer hardware with encryption capabilities if the Secretary determines that a product offering comparable security is commercially available outside the United States from a foreign supplier, without effective restrictions. But that part is hardware only. Software just has to be freely available to anyone who wants it. It's almost like this was written just for cypherpunks. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
At 17:00 -0700 9/25/97, John Smith wrote:
This is wrong. I quoted the part earlier removing restrictions on generally available software. Here is what they say about that:
Legislative history is not a guidepost I like to follow when considering whether a bill is a good one. Note the Supremes largely rejected the government's arguments that the legislative history of the CDA justified it as a law. Instead you should look at the plain text of the law, which says software not requiring a license is: "(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; or
There's nothing about it having to be available overseas. You are probably confusing it with the hardware part:
Nope, the "generally available" clause above talks about software. Reread the text of the bill, not some staffer's wet dreams about what they want it to say. Then there's the bit Tim was complaining about: "(3) SOFTWARE WITH ENCRYPTION CAPABILITIES. -- The Secretary shall authorize the export or reexport of software with encryption capabilities for nonmilitary end-uses in any country to which exports of software of similar capability are permitted for use by financial institutions not controlled in fact by United States persons, unless there is substantial evidence that such software will be -- "(A) diverted to a military end-use or an end-use supporting international terrorism; "(B) modified for military or terrorist end-use; or "(C) reexported without any authorization by the United States that may be required under this Act. Of course there's substantial evidence that PGP etc. will be used by unapproved people. That's another problem with SAFE. -Declan ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/
participants (2)
-
Declan McCullagh -
John Smith