Robert Harley (Robert.Harley@inria.fr)
Fri, 4 Dec 1998 11:05:06 +0100 (MET)

Tom Whore wrote:
>U.S. claims victory on global encryption exports

Fuck those bastards! (pardon my French).

However this piece is David Aaron's take as respewed by the press, and
so is unlikely to represent the facts terribly accurately.

Previously a "General Software Note" applied:

>The Lists do not control "software" which is either:
>1. Generally available to the public by being:
> a. Sold from stock at retail selling points without restriction, by
> means of:
> 1. Over-the-counter transactions;
> 2. Mail order transactions; or
> 3. Telephone call transactions; and
> b. Designed for installation by the user without further suhstantial
> support by the supplier; or
>2. "In the public domain".

I'd like to know what *exactly* has changed, because it's very scary
if countries like Ireland and Scandinavian ones just cave in and sign
away such important exemptions.

>The new policy also reduced reporting and paperwork requirements and
>specifically excluded from export controls products that used encryption to
>protect intellectual property

If it was really that simple, this would be a loophole you could drive
a truck through: hey, I own copyright to my email so I need to protect
that I.P. with P.G.P.! We'll probably find that it only applies to
billion-dollar corporate entities located in Hollywood, CA, USA.

Also, W.A. is supposed to be an arms control arrangement, so what
about clauses like "This arrangement [...] will not impede bona fide
civil transactions" which is right at the top of the document? Surely
if Joe Schmoe buys some crypto (or other) mass-market software, then
that constitutes a "bona fide civil transaction"? Oh sorry, I've
been assuming it was written in English instead of double-speak.

"Rage, rage against the dying of the light." - Dylan Thomas


PS: I hope all you yanks are suitably ashamed of your country as the
instigator of this crap.