Hacker Neue

Preferences
fainpul parent
Remember when it was illegal to export strong cryptography from the US? There was no law to restrict that, so they just made something up. It basically went like this:

Problem: we can't make cryptography exports (software exports) illegal

-> what actually IS illegal to export?

-> munitions!

-> let's just declare that cryptography is "munitions"

-> problem solved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

tmoertel
Do you also remember the researcher Philip Zimmerman’s hack to get around the cryptography-is-munitions edict? The source code to PGP was published by MIT Press as a book that just happened to be in a format suitable for OCR. That framing made it into a First Amendment issue, one the researchers were confident they’d win in court.

https://archive.org/details/pgpsourcecodeint0000zimm

pjmlp
My university had that book, I think it can be used as a weapon actually, given its weight.
paufernandez
I wonder what kind of gun uses books as munition.
cratermoon
a librarigun
pjmlp
Human arms, projecting it into someone's else head as hard as they can. :)
lesuorac
Can't you stick about anything heavy to use as munitions for a cannon?
tclancy
Was a t shirt too. I regret not getting a hold of one back then.
somat
As far as legal hacks go I always liked xkcd joke on the matter.

https://xkcd.com/504/

If it is a munition the US government has limitations on it's actions controlling it covered under the 2nd amendment to the constitution.

In reality it nor the first amendment(freedom of speech) hack probably would not work. The limitation was on exporting strong crypto, not using or importing it. It was stupid and impossible to control. But I would guess any charges would be espionage(illegal speech) and smuggling(illegal goods). regardless of how you packaged it.

0xEF
Not that I agree with it, but I do see the logic. The word "munitions" can be replaced with "materials," since it literally refers to materials used for warfare. That isn't necessarily limited to things that shoot or explode. It's a brilliant bit of pedantry if you step back and think about it.
amelius
So it can refer to people and what is in their minds too?

Anyway I'm not surprised. This kind of pedantry is what lawyers do for a living.

cratermoon
Yes kind of. The "born secret" doctrine says all knowledge related to the creation of nuclear weapons, ranging from nuclear fusion to the production of fissile material, as “born classified".

The doctrine has never been tested in court as no case involving it has gone to trail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret

PaulHoule
I've definitely figured some things out about nuclear weapons and proliferation that I've never told anyone because of that doctrine. I met a real nuclear engineer at a conference and had dinner and he told me about how he was concerned that people would nick Np237 from a fuel reprocessing system to make nuclear weapons and I pointed out that it was OK to talk about that because I'd seen it in the literature.
hollerith
Yes, it can, and I thank God because I wouldn't want more nuclear powers than what the world already has.
necovek
If Ukraine did not retire their nuclear weapons... (Russia was surprisingly all too happy to oblige)

All I am saying is that I am not sure it's so simple: sure, if everyone had them, the risk that there is some lunatic crazy enough to actually put them to use rises; but it also potentially stops a bunch of wars, especially bigger countries going after smaller ones.

motorest
> So it can refer to people and what is in their minds too?

You're being needlessly obtuse. If you bother to learn about the topic, you'll understand it's about distributing software.

lostlogin
On the upside, when my Dad bought a G4 Mac, the brief block on exporting it due to its dangerous power was maximum nerd points.
tveyben
They had a great add then (I also had a lot of G4’s ;-)
motorest
> There was no law to restrict that, so they just made something up.

That's a rather facetious interpretation. You're complaining that there was no law preventing software being distributed, and as there was a need to prevent that then lawmakers fixed that problem. That's hardly surprising, isn't it?

You also seem surprised that including cryptography software in existing lists designed to prevent export of military and/or dual-use technology is also surprising, unexpected, or outlandish. If you actually think about it, is it really?

webstrand
The lawmakers did not have any involvement. The executive branch unilaterally abused its power to declare that encryption was a munition, to work around the fact it had no other power to restrict it without convincing the legislature to actually make a law.

If you go by the common interpretation of "munitions" and by and large the contents of that list, then it clearly does was not intended to include mathematics.

motorest
> The lawmakers did not have any involvement. The executive branch unilaterally abused its power to declare that encryption was a munition, to work around the fact it had no other power to restrict it without convincing the legislature to actually make a law.

I think you are trying very hard to imagine inconsistencies where there are none. Not only are you trying to argue that cryptographical software is not relevant to military uses, which is an absurd argument to make, but you are also trying to argue that managing what items feature in an export control list is not the responsibility of an executive branch.

The only requirement to export-control something is that the item features in an export-control list. You're complaining that a specific type of software was added to such a list. Tell me exactly what part you don't, can't, or refuse to understand.

tiahura
Like net neutrality and DACA.
ashtonshears
‘Lawmakers’ fixed no problems, no laws were made. Enforcers leveraged existing laws in ways that are clearly not intended purposed for their own goals; that will always be ripe for abuse and must be discouraged. Cryptography is not a munition.
IAmBroom
The word "need" is doing some heavy lifting. "Desire" or "wish" seems more appropriate.

This item has no comments currently.