home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!news.service.uci.edu!beckman.com!dn66!a_rubin
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt
- Subject: Re: LUC vs. RSA
- Message-ID: <a_rubin.726173033@dn66>
- From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
- Date: 4 Jan 93 18:43:53 GMT
- References: <1992Dec30.151754.10932@rose.com>
- Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.
- Nntp-Posting-Host: dn66.dse.beckman.com
- Lines: 30
-
- In <1992Dec30.151754.10932@rose.com> robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) writes:
-
-
- >Date Entered: 12-30-92 10:07
- >amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes, in
- >Message-ID: <9212291723.AA25966@chaos.intercon.com>
-
- >re something developed in Aussie land:
-
- >A> Where it was developed is not relevant to ITAR. If it performs encipherment,
- >A> it's covered--doesn't matter if it's foreign, domestic, PD or commercial.
- >A> This is the principle manner in which ITAR presents a trade barrier to U.S.
- >A> vendors who are trying to compete in international markets.
- >A>
- >A> The Department of Commerce likes exports. The Department of State doesn't.
- >A> That's the U.S. regulatory system for you.
-
- >I believe (I could be wrong) Australia is part of COCOM, which means
- >that crypto software and hardware are covered, and cannot be exported
- >or imported without permission from the government. The ITARs are US
- >only, but the COCOM regs are not, and still cover the product.
-
- But, do COCOM regs define encryption software as munitions? (They
- certainly won't include US laws or regulations by reference; there must be
- a specific definition.) Of course, the regs are probably secret....
- --
- 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.
-