From: res@colnet.cmhnet.org (Rob Stampfli)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: Little to None
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:31:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.014118.11612@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Bill Stewart corrects my understanding of PGP and IDEA (thanks), which
>suggests that troubles for possession and/or use of PGP2.x in the U.S.
>can also come from the Munitions Act since PGP is based on an import
>of the IDEA implementation, rather than domestic coding of the IDEA
>algorithm.
>
>If my understanding is now accurate that PGP2.x violates both the
>Munitions Act and PKP's patents, and that this violation is occasioned
>not just by use but also by possession in the U.S., then it would seem
>prudent to get it off one's U.S. computers and any U.S. net
>sites--Internet, Usenet, Fidonet, anynet. Presence on a bulletin board
>system may be just what someone needs to close down that system.

I am still not convinced, from what I have read in this forum, that the
mere possession of PGP is prima facia evidence that one has personally
violated the Muntions Act.  The code has been readily available on a number
of local (internal to US) machines.  There are many things that may not
be individually imported (at least very easily), but which are legal to
possess in this country.  I do agree with you that by making the program
available indiscriminately, you may potentially become liable for violation
of the (in my mind neanderthal) export provisions of the Munitions Act.

>For completeness and to acknowledge a particular position (with which
>I disagree), some feel that it's absurd to prevent use of something
>here that's widespread in Europe, and are willing to take a chance in
>order to press that.

I do not understand what you disagree with.  Do you disagree with those
who feel that crypto software that is available to the rest of the world
should be available to Americans, or do you disagree with the taking of
chances to potentially arrive at those ends?

>My own position is
>that if one thinks a law or situation is incorrect, one moves to get
>it changed, if possible. One does not take the law into one's own
>hands.

Actually, as I understand the legal system in the US, there are two avenues
by which law may be changed.  You can petition for legislative action, or
you can take your case into the courts.  Now, courts generally don't rule on
speculative issues -- they usually demand a bona fide case on which to judge.
Hence, you very much have to take the law into your own hands -- someone has
to become the proverbial guinea pig.  This is exactly what happened with the
RU-whatever case involving the French abortion pill.  A woman shows up at
customs with the pills, after informing them of the fact before hand, customs
arrests her for possession, and the case is in the courts.

In this case, if someone is of a mind, they could preselect to get into the
courts in a civil or criminal capacity.  If you want a civil suit, petition
the government to let you import the code, and if they refuse, you have the
grounds for civil litigation.  You could even raise money and make it a class
action suit.  If you desire a criminal suit, inform the government that you
intend to import the code -- tell them how and when, and mention that you
are interested in making this a test case -- and let them decide to either
ignore it or charge you with a criminal violation.

Now, I am not financially independent, nor do I possess the time and
inclination to pursue either of these approaches.  I do consider them to be
rational and ethical methods of seeking redress from an unpopular law.
-- 
Rob Stampfli  rob@colnet.cmhnet.org      The neat thing about standards:
614-864-9377  HAM RADIO: kd8wk@n8jyv.oh  There are so many to choose from.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp