1 |
(This is all tangential to the main issue of this thread and just |
2 |
discussing internet history - skip as you wish...) |
3 |
|
4 |
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:14 PM Marek Szuba <marecki@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I am no expert on US law but from what I have read (in many different |
7 |
> sources, with me having begun using PGP in either late 1996 or early |
8 |
> 1997 i.e. when it was still very much subject to US export restrictions) |
9 |
> about this case, both the publishing of the source-code book and it |
10 |
> having subsequently been taken out of the country has been legal - the |
11 |
> former due to publishing the first amendment |
12 |
|
13 |
Well, based on the little I know of US export controls, I doubt that |
14 |
being in book form vs some other form really has any bearing in |
15 |
principle. |
16 |
|
17 |
HOWEVER, I think it was probably done specifically as a challenge to |
18 |
the constitutionality of the law. Ie, the argument would be that it |
19 |
ought to be legal to take the source code out in any form. By doing |
20 |
it via a formally published book though they take away all the "exotic |
21 |
internetness" out of the equation and this way all the 60 year old |
22 |
judges (in the 90s) who might get involved are forced to confront it |
23 |
as suppression of book distribution. In principle though I think most |
24 |
of us would agree that there is no difference in sharing information |
25 |
no matter the way in which it is conveyed. It was probably their hope |
26 |
that if it did go to court any ruling that secured the right to |
27 |
distribute via book could then be leveraged against other modes. |
28 |
|
29 |
I'm guessing that it was never challenged in court precisely for this |
30 |
reason. US export controls cover the communication of information via |
31 |
any mode: |
32 |
https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/deemed-exports |
33 |
|
34 |
If they had fought the export of this book it is quite possible that |
35 |
there would have been a ruling that just finds all export controls to |
36 |
be illegal. Really when you think about it any sort of restriction on |
37 |
communication of classified information or whatever is going to run |
38 |
into the 1st amendment. Courts are going to tend to make their |
39 |
rulings on what can be restricted narrow as a result. The government |
40 |
probably prefers to maintain some FUD around where those boundaries |
41 |
lie, to get companies in particular to follow policies that in the end |
42 |
might not be enforceable. (Note I'm not arguing that dissemination of |
43 |
classified info ought to be legal, but as you move away from things |
44 |
like locations of troops or blueprints of specific aircraft or |
45 |
whatever, into more generic topics like entire classes of technology, |
46 |
I think you're going down a slippery slope...) |
47 |
|
48 |
The main reason that all of this went away though was that I think it |
49 |
was Clinton that specifically granted an exception to cryptography |
50 |
software from ITAR. The concerns were that the cat was basically out |
51 |
of the bag anyway, and consumers were potentially going to be harmed |
52 |
by things like web browsers getting distributed with 40-bit key |
53 |
limitations. Sure, secure browsers were also probably available to |
54 |
people who knew the right links to click, but do we really want |
55 |
somebody reputable like Google to end up having to have a link on |
56 |
their website for a non-secure version of their software, and where |
57 |
the non-secure link just gives you a download, while the secure link |
58 |
makes you jump through hoops to verify your location/etc? The popular |
59 |
use of SSL for entering credit card info on e-commerce sites really |
60 |
was what drove it IMO. |
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
Rich |