From: JamesL@Lugoj.com
(I attempt to post a variant of this about 2 weeks ago, with another try a
week ago. It never made it to the moderator either time. While the thread
has run its course, I'd like to get this "on the record" anyway.)
g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> len@tour2space.com (Len) wrote:
>> > Then, instead of DoT sending the U.S. citizen to jail, the
>> > Dept. of State would do the honors for violating technology
>> > export laws.
>>
>> What exists uniquely in the U.S. that the U.S. citizen would need to
>> export? (Other than themself?)
>
> Uh, Jim, one is dealing here with a bureaucracy that has classified
> "strong encryption technology" as a _MUNITION_ that may not be
> exported --- nothwithstanding the fact that anyone in the world who
> has read and understood the relevant publicly-available CS and Math
> journals should at least in principle be able to code up any given
> encryption algorithm in fairly short order!
I'm definitely not going to argue your position, since I wholeheartedly
agree with it! But it appears to me to be addressing a different point than
the one I'm concerned about.
> These people are =NOT= exactly strong on logic, reason, or critical
> thinking;
Hmmm... sounds like some Usenet posters! :-)
> they are only interested in "policy," and perceived
> "national interest"... :-(
I wouldn't have posted on this subject at all, but I saw statements
implying the FAA had vast jurisdiction in all sorts of areas - one or two
that I happened to know were regulated by other authorities. It looked to
me like people were confusing export of munitions with launch licensing,
with some aspects of SEC authority and executive branch sanctioning
confusion thrown in for good measure. Or more likely I misunderstood their
positions.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
