1. Re: Illegal export of crypto,insinuations and accusations by Norm
On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:00:07 -0500, Norm Goundry
<bonk1000 at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>Brrr!!! Did someone leave a door open here someplace, or what?
>There was a cold breeze blowing through the place, and I
>understand it comes from a so-called member of a large
>law-enforcement organization.
"So called"? I assure you, I most certainly _am_ a member of a
large law enforcement organization. It is, in fact, the largest
law enforcement organization in the United States that does not
have multi-state jurisdiction. And I _am_ a member of that
force, although not one that is directly charged with law
enforcement duties (which I never claimed to be). And I _did_
take an oath such as I described. These were required from me
upon my hiring.
> As being one myself from some
>years ago (a cadre-instructor at military police headquarters in
>the U.S. Army), I assure you mr. "jeff zeitlin", that
>representing yourself as member of the police, or
>fire-department, or any other civil organization in your country
>is ALSO A FELONY.
Excuse me? I am representing myself as exactly what I am. I
have made no statement about my employment or my oath that is
demonstrably false. Nor have I made any effort to conceal my
name. It is certainly no felony - nor even a misdemeanor or
violation - to tell the truth. And I certainly am not claiming
authority that I do not have, nor am I attempting to use my
position for personal gain. Quite the opposite - I am being up
front about a distasteful position that I saw the possibility of
finding myself in, and I am trying to avoid finding myself in
that position.
> Now, since you seem to think that mentioning
>your so-called status can swing any weight outside of your
>jurisdictional area (i.e., where you draw your paycheck for
>whatever job it is that you do) try doing it. For example, try
>bringing your sidearm (if you have been allowed one) and your
>threats into Canada, or Britain, or Japan, and see what happens!
I have made no threats. I have deliberately avoided making
threats, especially those that I cannot keep. At the time I made
the post that seems to have provoked so much rancor - and
stupidity - I had overlooked the fact that Mr. Nieuwenhuijsen was
not located within a jurisdiction where the laws I am required to
uphold were in force. For that error, I would apologize. I am
not suggesting that United States laws are to be enforced against
non-citizens not located within the United States. If Dutch law
and European Community law permit Mr. Nieuwenhuijsen to e-mail
source to interested parties, then he is perfectly free to do so.
At any rate, legal for Ralf or not, I have nothing to say on that
matter, as my obligation does not extend to non-U.S.-citizens not
located on United States soil. It is even potentially
questionable whether it extends to U.S. citizens not on United
States soil.
(However, were he to post even the source code to this list, he
would be placing Miami University of Ohio, where this list is
served, in violation of the laws in question, as this list is
clearly machine-readable media transmitted across national
boundaries other than that between the United States and Canada.
_Ralf_, however, would still not be in violation.)
>You should know that the higher 'law' that you have sworn to
>uphold is the Constitution of the United States of America, which
>guarantees certain 'unalienable rights', among which are the rights
>to assembly, freedom of speech, etc.
Yes, I realize that. I also am familiar with many of the legal
limitations on those rights. And cryptographic law is a subject
of some interest to me, so I have made a special effort to become
informed of some of the legal issues surrounding it.
> You are out of your territory
>in my neck of the woods, and I was raised by my parents to not give
>in to bullies and blackmail.
Very good; you should be proud of yourself. Knuckling under to
bullies and blackmailers is always a bad move. I fail to see
where my previous post could be construed as either.
However, my oath and obligation specifically mentioned the laws
of the United States, not only the Constitution. Therefore, if I
am aware that you provably intend to violate a law of the United
States - a Federal law, in other words - I am obligated to report
this information to the appropriate agencies.
> Mr. Zeitlin, this is what your 'job'
>is: to do as you are told to do, not what you think to do.
False. Both in the execution of my particular duties, and as a
member of this organization, I am expected to use my judgement to
accomplish the organization's goals, within the limits that the
organization has set. The organization has not set any explicit
limits to my duty in connection with my oath. And I am expected
to uphold my oath. Something which, apparently, is _not_
expected of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the
United States.
> I have
>been there myself,
You have not. Based on your own claims, you have not been in a
law enforcement organization, but in the Armed Forces of the
United States. You have been in a subdivision of those Forces
that deals with the enforcement of _military_ law. I am on the
non-military side of things. Law enforcement, not national
defense. There is a distinction, and, quite frankly, you had the
harder job, and the more serious strictures on your oath and your
actions. But it _is_ different on the civilian side of the
fence, and I am required to do more than merely follow orders.
> and I assure you that if you are a real person,
>in a real position, then you have already broken your oath by the
>way that you have placed yourself as to determining whether a law
>has or has not been broken. It is not your choice to make. Get on
>with your life, and leave other people alone with theirs.
Apparently the English language is unfamiliar to you. I do not
determine whether the law has been broken. I simply report on
activities that I witness, in any form, that appear to me, based
on my best understanding of applicable laws, to violate those
laws. It is then up to the people charged with the actual
enforcement, and subsequent prosecution, to make the decision.
Even if I witnessed Ralf handing a floppy disk containing his
strong encryption to a consular staffer from, say, the People's
Republic of China, within the jurisdiction of my organization,
and I could prove that the disk contained the strong encryption
material, I could do no more than report what I had seen, and
leave the rest up to those charged with actual enforcement. But,
under the terms of my oath to uphold the law, and under my own
moral code acting in conjunction with that oath and those laws, I
would be required to report it. To _report_ it. That is _all_
that I am required to do, all that I am equipped to do, and all
that I am willing to do.
That having been said, I reiterate my _request_ that any
discussion of exchanging actual code for strong encryption be
removed from the list, and that _all_ list members refrain from
posting code for strong encryption to the list. I fully agree
that the United States regulations governing the export of strong
encryption are anachronistic and ineffective; nevertheless, they
are still in force, and the Government of the United States still
enforces them.
--
Jeff Zeitlin
jzeitlin at cyburban.com
