[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
LYNX-DEV SSL, Lynx & US Law
From: |
Philip Webb |
Subject: |
LYNX-DEV SSL, Lynx & US Law |
Date: |
Sun, 8 Dec 1996 01:38:27 -0500 (EST) |
Some hard-working & responsible person said 961207:
>
> What we recently worked out to say in the FAQ on this point is:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> US Export laws and regulations introduce impediments to the inclusion
> of security support in the general distributions of a freeware WWW
> client such as Lynx.
>
> [1]Tom Zerucha <address@hidden> has two ways to add SSL capability to
> your Lynx installation, as Lynx patches or via a proxy. He says:
>
> For now, If someone [2]emails me stating they are a US or Canadian
> citizen in the US or Canada, and promises not to redistribute it, I
> will send them the source to my proxy or the patches. A PGP key is
> preferred, though the request itself need not be encrypted.
>
> The only reason I am asking for a promise not to redistribute (and
> not even making it a licensing term) is that they may be illegal
> under ITAR. What I should say (and actually intend) is distribute
> at your own risk, but I can't :). I couldn't suggest to people
> that they should drive over 55 until this year either.
>
> Theoretically the code to either the proxy or the patches is
> protected as free speech under the first amendment, and the
> prohibition of "hooks" is too vague to stand up in court. The code
> contains no actual crypto, only "hooks" to something that does.
>
> I am not a lawyer; this is my layman's understanding of the
> situation. Ask a real lawyer for a real opinion.
> [etc]
As a Canadian with the usual mixed feelings re the US system of govt,
may I throw in my (smaller Cdn) 10 cents worth.
I've never heard of any Canadian law prohibiting use/export of any level
of encryption. Obviously US Law has no application north of the border.
So if the US Govt allows export of hi-level encryption products to Canada
it has left a gaping hole in its legislation thro' which one can drive
any number of e-trucks. NOTHING in ANY US laws has ANY force in Canada,
even if some Canadian diplomat/minister has made friendly noises
(which they haven't as far as I know).
So it's surely very simple: EITHER the US Govt allows export to Canada
-- when their encryption laws are for all practical purposes useless --
OR it doesn't allow export to Canada -- when Mr Zerucha could still get
entangled in Clinton's barbed-wire fence.
We trade freely with Cuba; there's a billboard not 200 metres from here
inviting tourists to go there; some of us are actually proud of the fact
that Canada has never broken normal relations with Cuba; we'ld be insulted
by the Helms-Burton Act, if we didn't see it as a sick joke. As Canada
& the EU will be arguing at the WTO, US laws stop at the US borders,
however difficult some Americans find it to accept that fact.
I know it's a different Act & I have been following the news stories,
but isn't the whole Lynx-Encryption fuss an exercise in paranoia?
--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a mail message to address@hidden
; with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
; quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;
- LYNX-DEV Update on SSL and Lynx, Subir Grewal, 1996/12/07
- Re: LYNX-DEV Update on SSL and Lynx, Al Gilman, 1996/12/07
- LYNX-DEV SSL, Lynx & US Law,
Philip Webb <=
- Re: LYNX-DEV SSL, Lynx & US Law, Michael Richardson, 1996/12/08
- LYNX-DEV SSL, Lynx & US Law, Philip Webb, 1996/12/09
- Re: LYNX-DEV SSL, Lynx & US Law, Michael Richardson, 1996/12/09
- Re: LYNX-DEV SSL, Lynx & US Law, Tom Zerucha, 1996/12/09
Re: LYNX-DEV Update on SSL and Lynx, Tom Zerucha, 1996/12/09
Re: LYNX-DEV Update on SSL and Lynx, Michael Richardson, 1996/12/12