Re: A followup on github discussion
Joe writes:
> It's based on the concept that only Americans can write software: it's
> not a problem for the rest of the world to know how strong encryption
> works, because only Americans are able to write software to do it, and
> they're not allowed to export it.
It's based on the concept that encryption is militarily useful and
therefor is a munition under the definition of munition in the export
control law and therefor should not be exported without a license (which
is not the same as "they're not allowed to export it"). Exporting
firearms also requires a license. That does not mean that they think
that no one else can make guns nor does it mean that export of firearms
is never allowed.
The laws were written to control (not forbid) the export of actual
weapons and then stretched to cover "dual use technology" and
information as to how to make things as well as the things themselves.
It works as poorly in the latter case as you would expect, of course.
> ...American encryption software writers can be leaned on by the US
> government...
No they can't.
> I do recall a time when even [encryption] source code could only be
> exported in physically printed form, not in electronic form, and PGP
> was distributed abroad as a book.
It was also printed on T-shirts which people wore while leaving the
country. The government knew very well that the Federal courts would
not allow them to seize books and printed material. It soon became
clear to them that the courts would agree that the same material in
digital form would get the same protection.
The export control laws are not an Official Secrets Act, though the
export control bureaucracy would have you believe it is.
--
John Hasler
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
Reply to: