On 10/06/15 07:36, Adrian McCullagh wrote:
Dear All,
I with 4 colleagues of mine (3 at the Queensland University of
Technology (Cryptographers all)and one from the University of
Queensland (Legal E-commerce researcher) have been working on a paper
dealing with the Australian Defence Trade Control Act which corresponds
to the proposed US ITAR changes.
Sounds interesting,
They are basically trying to reintroduce the "born secret" principle,
which in US law exists only in an unchallenged part of the Atomic Energy
Act; though that concept has not been tested against First Amendment
rights as the only previous case of note (United States v. The
Progressive, 1979) was dropped by the Government before it reached the
Supreme Court.
But it's "born again secret" as well as "born secret, again" - it
applies to all previous technical data, whether widely disseminated or not.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Without giving everything away on our forthcoming paper, it appears to
me that if this type of regulation had been in place in Germany in 1938,
then it is highly likely that Einstein would never have read the Hahn -
Strassmann paper dealing with splitting a uranium atom. That paper
written in 1938 (December I believe) was read by Einstein in March 1939
and it directly lead to Einstein sending a letter to Roosevelt, which in
turn resulted in 1942 to the establishment of the Manhattan project.
Now if NAZI Germany had restricted that publication NAZI Germany could
have developed the bomb itself which could have completely altered the
outcome.
Basically, if regimes like the DCTA/ITAR rules are expanded then it
works both ways and there could be a stifling of publication research
due to bureaucratic mishandling. Though it could assist in the spy
business as in the cold war.
Dr. Adrian McCullagh
Ph.D. LL.B.(Hons) B. App. Sc. (Computing)
ODMOB Lawyers
Mobile 0401 646 486
Skype. Admac57
E: [email protected]
E: [email protected]
The contents of this email are confidential between the sender and the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient then no rights
are granted to you because of this error and as such you are requested
to promptly inform the sender of the error and to promptly destroy all
copies of the email in your power, possession or control. The sender
reserves all rights concerning this email and its contents including any
privilege, copyright and confidentiality associated with this email.
Even though an email signature block has been appended to this email,
and notwithstanding the Electronic Transactions Act (Qld) or the
Electronic Transactions Act (Cth), the signature block does not exhibit
the senders intention to be bound by an offer previously sent by the
intended recipient, unless the email in its body specifically indicated
that the sender hereby accepts such an offer previously sent by the
intended recipient.
*From:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, 10 June 2015 1:54 PM
*To:* Cryptography Mailing List <mailto:[email protected]>,
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Snap, from Australia:
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/dangerous-minds-are-maths-teachers-australias-newest-threat-20150608-ghira9.html
"Australian academics who teach mathematics may need to run new
ideas by the Department of Defence before sharing them or risk
imprisonment.
Some academics are set to become much more familiar with the
department's Defence Export Control Office (DECO), a unit that
enforces the Defence Trade Control Act 2012, Australia's end of a
2007 pact with the US and UK over defence trade.
Until recently, DECO only regulated physically exported weapons and
so-called "dual use" items such as encryption, computing hardware
and biological matter.
However in March the act was updated to include "intangible supply",
which is intended to prohibit the transfer of knowledge from
Australia that could be used to produce weapons."
Alfie
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015, at 05:36 PM, pete wrote:
> Proposed US ITAR changes. New regs, for comment, not yet in law or
> in force.
>
>
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-obama-regulation/article/2565762
>
> www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf
<http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf>
>
>
> Actually, it says, for the first time explicitly, that publishing
> widely on the internet would be enough to put data into the
> public domain
> [000]. Sounds good?
>
www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
<http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography>
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
