Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:59:56 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1992Dec15.110814.27222@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>Hugh Miller's article is filled with so many inaccuracies it's hard to
>know where to start, so I'll treat only a few; the remainder is left
>to others as it's pretty late at night. I'm going to digest, since the
>message is so long.

So is yours.

>The first part consists of a massive imputation of motives to Jim
>Bidzos simply because he gave Carl Ellison some information. As it
>happens, he gave the same information to me and others. Miller's
>analysis reads like a paranoid piece of thinking to me.

The analysis seems reasonable to me.  Bidzos can deny that his statements
represent the position of RSA/PKP (and, in fact, he did, except to say that
their position is that you should use RSADEF subject to its license,
without saying what is in that license.)

>He next finds the advocacy of ripem (which is legal) rather than
>PGP (which is not, in the U.S.) sinister. More paranoia?

ripem is illegal outside of the usa, and clearly belongs to RSA inside. 
PGP _might_ be illegal in the usa.

>He then decides to interpret Bidzos' comments as "threats" instead
>of statements of fact about Bidzos' interpretation of the PKP patents
>and the Munitions Act. I must tell Miller, who appears to be winging
>it without checking the Act, that Bidzos message to me contained
>extensive quotations from the Munitions act which make it absolutely
>clear to me that Bidzos is accurate and so is Ellison's summary.

Did you read the Munitions act yourself?  How do you know that Bidzos
didn't make up some of the quotes, or that they have not been repealed. 
(BTW, it also appears that an act effecting which of
Commerce/State/Defense has jurisdiction _may_ only give to Defense what
Commerce has waived, in the case of published (or specifically,
public domain) encryption software.)  Consult _your_ lawyer, not that of
the opposition, if you want legal advice that benefits you.)

...

>Then Miller characterizes as "intimidation and innuendo" what I would
>characterize as "fair warning." He leaps from Bidzos mentioning that
>PKP in the U.S. is an ITAR violation (Bidzos provided detailed
>Munitions Act quotes in his message to me which convinces me he's
>right), to Bidzos prosecuting developers under the ITAR. That's a
>totally false statement. Miller then decides to use this as a way to
>vamp to his obvious dislike of the Reagan Administration. Has no one
>told Miller that Bush is President, and soon Clinton.

I agree with you on this one; IF Bidzos quoted the Munitions Act correctly,
and it has not been modified by other laws (as I noted above), then
importing or exporting encryption software would be an ITAR violation.  _I_
think he intended it as a threat, but it could be interpreted as a warning.

>Next we have a superb analysis of why the government won't prosecute
>anyway (because they're embarrassed by a few other incidents) which
>simply takes the breath away, and is likely to go down in legal
>annals. I'd hate to be a D.A. taking instructions from Miller.

It actually seems reasonable to me.  I'd hate to be a D.A. persecuting/
prosecuting Miller.  Unless the government can find some excuse to make it
a classified trial, I doubt they will prosecute any ITAR violations on
published software.  On the other hand, the government can seize a
computer, and never get around to prosecuting.

>Miller then moves to an attempt to argue that one may, with
>impunity, post export-prohibited materials to a bulletin
>board which foreigners have access to. His arguments at this
>point have become pathetic in his eagerness to make himself
>right and RSA wrong. He'd better talk to a few software companies
>which sell export controlled materials, to see what safeguards
>are, in fact required.

There, I agree with you.  It is clearly illegal to post export-controlled
materials on a BBS.  However, R should then have been prosecuted for
writing his Scientific American article, as Scientific American is sent
world-wide.

--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.