Commerce Department encryption rules declared unconstitutional

Declan McCullagh declan at
Tue Aug 26 07:22:55 PDT 1997

This is from memory, and I'm on vacation so I don't have my notes here... 

But didn't Peter originally attempt a facial challenge, but the judge
questioned whether he had standing? Then he changed tactics to follow
Bernstein/Karn more closely and //not// mount a facial challenge... 


On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, John Young wrote:

> Declan wrote:
> >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?
> Does this not shift now to Peter Junger's suit: same issues, broader
> challenge, same opposing arguments? Did Patel rule narrowly in
> Bernstein to set the stage for the broader case in the works?
> BTW, is there a suit being readied to follow Peter's? Karn II? PRZ 6.0?
> What say, Peter, Lee, Cindy, Phil, Phil, Anthony et al?

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list