Bernstein Allowed to Post Snuffle

keil writes, "Bernstein will be able to post his source code to Snuffle without needing an export license according to this article on dailynews.yahoo.com. The loosened export restrictions make this possible. Anyone may post encryption source code as long as it's royalty-free and they send a copy to the government. A Wall Street Journal article also says the code must not be able to reach residents of countries supspected of supporting terrorism, which creates an interesting problem. Click to read the previous article on this. " Bernstein and his lawyers actually have a bit of a pickle - the new regs allow code to be posted, but still place restrictions on what you can do - you don't have to notify the government when you post a cookie recipe online, for instance. So though there isn't much of a restriction, it still exists: do they pursue the case or drop it and call it a win? The letter from the BXA is available.

Just compensation

[unitron]

-insert obligatory "I know I'll be moderated up/down for this, but..." statement here-

If this were a case of commercially developed software and the government said that the creator-owner couldn't sell it "for security reasons" or even if it were a patent on some technology the government wanted to supress "for security reasons", would this constitute a "taking" and would the government then be obligated to fairly compensate the author/inventor? And how would a fair level of compensation be determined?

Re:it's a start

[awa]

Would you care to ellaborate on this?
I also believe everybody should have access to strong encryption sources - actually *any* sources -, but I see no point in having "especially terrorists" have access to strong encryption.
I, for one, think terrorism is a Bad Thing: no mather how good the cause, innocent people suffer the most.

Re:Just compensation

[Doc Hopper]

You know, we've run up against this same problem time and again in our new "connected" world. That the concepts of "taking" and of "property" lose meaning in the context of software. It appears our current judicial system just isn't well equipped to answer these questions.
As with many things, I think it depends on one's point of view.
From the author's point of view, if he views his algorithm as "property", it could be considered taking and he could demand payment. Alternately, since he's one who considers computer source code a form of speech (as do I), the restriction on exports of source code may be construed as a restriction on his first amendment rights.
It's a complex issue that isn't going to be solved in a day. The original issue with this guy was that the export restrictions, which were never voted upon nor approved by representatives of the people, but instead were handed down by Bill Clinton, a) should not apply to personal speech, and b) were an unconstitutional executive order.
I don't know what the answer is, but my representatives hear from me regularly on these kinds of issues. Remember that one consituent phone call is worth thousands of lobbyist dollars!
Sorry to ramble. Out.

Re:Be careful who you ask for compensation

[unitron]

There's a story at The Register [theregister.co.uk] about a French engineer who found big ol' security holes in the bank card system over there. When he tried to sell the way around the security that he came up with to the outfit that oversees that stuff, they gave him blank cards to prove his method with and then had him arrested, tried and convicted for doing so.