On 27/05/2015 1:32 PM, Paul Brooks wrote: > Tempered somewhat by exemptions: (http://www.defence.gov.au/DECO/DSGL.asp) > --- > ... From the comments to the Conversation article: > ... in the US it's ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations). The > famous US "crypto wars" of the 90s were largely over ITAR's treatment of > cryptogrpahy. > > ITAR has also had quite a strong effect on cryptography research in the US - > conferences and research are divided into "ITAR" and "non-ITAR" streams, and > technology is sometimes advertised as being "ITAR-free", for instance. ITAR > has its problems and is still a matter of controversy. > > But the Australian laws are significantly worse. The US ITAR regulations have > broader exceptions. They explicitly exclude all basic and applied research in > science and engineering. And my understanding is they don't have such a broad > criminalisation of intangible supplies of dual use technology.
PPAU has decided that, while it's not good, they have bigger fish to fry: <https://discuss.pirateparty.org.au/t/defence-trade-controls-amendment-bill-2015/488/2> A good summary of the Act and amendments, as proposed: <http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2015/01/dtca-public-consultation.html> It looks like, as usual, we've followed the US only worse. -- David Boxall | Drink no longer water, | but use a little wine http://david.boxall.id.au | for thy stomach's sake ... | King James Bible | 1 Timothy 5:23 _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
