From: moore@cs.utah.edu (Tim Moore)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
In-reply-to: strnlght@netcom.com's message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:23:47 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
	<1992Dec17.002347.19216@netcom.com>
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:28:25

In article <1992Dec17.002347.19216@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

   Tim Moore asks a lot of definitional questions about the Munitions
   Act. He should read the entire law--the terms are defined in it and
   RSA's interpretation is consistent with them, as I read it.

I was asking questions about ITAR, but I guess the Munitions Act is
the basis for that.  What is the law?  If I go to the law library on
campus and ask to see the text of ITAR, is that enough, or should I go
in citing chapter and verse?  By the way, is this stuff really a law
or is it regulations draw up by bureaucrats in the executive branch?

My point is that some of terms, as quoted by PKP, are ambiguous and
imply that a whole range of activities are forbidden by ITAR.  I
interpret the PKP letter by itself to claim that almost any
international activity related to cryptography is forbidden.  As that
relates to RSA it is a very favorable interpretation for PKP, but I'm
having a hard time swallowing it.

   By the way, the Japanese model makers would have violated the export
   laws if the dimensions of the F-15 were not published here by the Air
   Force. More likely they took a photograph of the plane with a man next
   to it from Aviation Week, and scaled it.

Exporting classified information isn't a just a violation of ITAR; it's
espionage.  Japanese aircraft models have a reputation for accuracy,
but that's stretching it.

You say that if the dimensions are published here by the Air Force,
then Tamya et al. aren't violating any export laws by making use of
them.  In fact the dimensions and rough performance characteristics of
the F-16 are available in hundreds of books and magazines published in
the U.S.  Maybe you could reveal how exporting this information
doesn't violate ITAR since the passages quoted by PKP would seem to
forbid it.

   In any case, the government may choose not to prosecute model makers
   but that's no assurance they won't prosecute crypto issues,
   particularly given their concern about those issues and the much
   greater damage secure cryptography can do to intelligence collection,
   compared to the damage from airplane models.

Yes, any analogy breaks down in the limit.  But is the difference
between building a model of an F-16 and using pgp (ignoring patent
issues) for one's private correspondence more than one of degree?
Sure, international rings of pederasts can cloak their activities more
effectively with secure crypto software than with styrene models, but
that shouldn't be a concern to most readers of these newsgroups.

   David

I'm not too worried about my right to build Japanese plastic models,
but if I can't implement the IDEA cipher based on a description in a
European conference proceedings, I'm worried.  Can you tell me, David,
from your reading of the law, that I can do that without violating
import/export regulations?

--
Tim Moore                    moore@cs.utah.edu {bellcore,hplabs}!utah-cs!moore
"Wind in my hair - Shifting and drifting - Mechanical music - Adrenaline surge"
	- Rush