In U.S. v Martinez, Elizabeth Martinez and her fiance were convicted of violating the Arms Export Control Act by exporting cryptographic hardware, namely "Videocipher II" video descrambling devices. (I believe these are used to descramble satellite TV broadcasts of HBO and other networks.) Defendants appealed, asking the court to overturn their conviction on the grounds that "the inclusion of 'cryptographic devices and software (encoding and decoding)' on the [Munitions] list is overbroad because this heading includes items already in the public domain whose dissemination would pose no security threat, and which lack any characteristic that is inherently or predominantly military." The 11th circuit appellate court rejected this argument in 904 F2d 601. The court decided that the question of whether an item properly belongs on the Munitions List is inherently political and is excluded from judicial review. "The question whether a particular item should have been placed on the Munitions List possesses nearly every trait that the Supreme Court has enumerated traditionally renders a question 'political'.... No satisfactory or manageable standards exist for judicial determination of the issue, as defendants themselves acknowledge the disagreement among experts as to whether Videocipher II belongs on the List.... Neither the courts nor the parties are privy to reports of the intelligence services on which this decision, or decisions like it, may have been based.... The consequences of uninformed judicial action could be grave." In these days of judicial activism, it is ironic that one time when civil libertarians might wish the court to take a hand and reverse a decision made by the other branches of government, the court chooses not to do so. Shortly before this decision was issued, the AECA was amended by adding the following section, 22 USC 2778(h): "The designation by the President (or by an official to whom the President's functions under subsection (a) have been duly delegated), in regulations issued under this section, of items as defense articles or defense services for purposes of this section shall not be subject to judicial review." So Congress and the court agree that the propriety of an item's placement on the Munitions List is not a matter for the courts to decide. There appears to be little chance that any prosecution for AECA violations will result in the judical removal of cryptographic equipment from the Munitions List. Hal Finney hfinney@shell.portal.com