mike3 <mike4ty4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>On Sep 29, 7:57 pm, Unruh <unruh-s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> mike3 <mike4...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> >Hi.
>> >Consider the following scenario. You sell someone a piece of strong
>> >encryption software. In this scenario, both you and the recipient are
>> >in the USA. But then that guy goes and ex****ts the software from the
>> >USA overseas. If his ex****t was illegal, can YOU be held liable, even
>> >if you had no intention of illegal ex****t?
>>
>> No, unless they could show that you intended or knew he was going to do
>> that when you gave/sold him the crypto. In criminal law, intent is
critical
>> to the case. Ie, you have to have intended the criminal action.
>>
>In this scenario, one was not giving out the software so someone would
>ex****t it.
>> >Is this what happened with Phillip Zimmermann & PGP? What would happen
>> >in such a situation these days, as I've heard the laws are different
>> >now than they were back then?
>>
>> Phillip Zimmermann was never charged, never mind found guilty. It, I
believe,
>> was argued that he both knew and was complicit in the ex****t, but that
>> arguement never carried enough weight even to produce an indictment,
never
>> mind a trial. Nor was the person who actually posted it ever indicted
>> AFAIK.
>>
>> The laws are different. But illegal ex****t of crypto still carries huge
>> penalties. What is illegal is now different however. Thus, if you
create
>> public open source crypto which you distribute for free, there are
>> essentially no restrictions, except that you must re****t it.
>But can one still get slammed with those penalties even for an ex****t
>that someone else did, even if one had no intent on ex****ting? What
>happens with code that is *not* distributed for free, but which you
>also do *not* ex****t yourself -- in fact you actively refuse to sell
>it outside the country at all? But your *end user* ex****ts it?
As I said, AFAIK intent is a crucial part of criminal law. If you had no
intent
to ex****t it, and in fact put in place things to make sure you did not
ex****t it, then what your users do is up to them. Now, you may have to
protect yourself against the accusation that you knew that they would
ex****t it and that you gave it to them specifically so that they would
ex****t it. Of course the prosecution would have to "prove beyond a
reasonable doubt" but the process of being investigated or being brought
to
trial could be horrendous even if you were eventually found innocent.
(Zimmermann endured two years of living uder a cloud and of paying a
lawyer
to help persuade the prosecution that no criminal act had taken place to
warrent an indictment.)
>> However do not
>> rely on legal advice you get from the net (and my comments are not
legal
>> advice).
>What about from non-net sources that are accessible to those
>without a large income?
The act itself is available on line.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/ear_data.html
|
