Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!eecae!cps3xx!rang From: rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: USSR International Computer Club (was: Information on the ICC) Message-ID: <1568@cps3xx.UUCP> Date: 20 Jan 89 06:50:31 GMT References: <10127@well.UUCP> <1315@orion.cf.uci.edu> <810@afit-ab.arpa> <10870@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> <824@afit-ab.arpa> <1560@cps3xx.UUCP> <825@afit-ab.arpa> Sender: usenet@cps3xx.UUCP Reply-To: rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) Distribution: na Organization: Michigan State University, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 115 In-reply-to: wbralick@afit-ab.arpa's message of 19 Jan 89 04:28:09 GMT In article <825@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: >In article <1560@cps3xx.UUCP> rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) writes: >>In article <824@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: >> >)>Once again, how do you prevent object and source code from being exported >)>to the Soviet Union? This is export-controlled technology. Anything >)>that can be done to raise the Soviet's cost of acquiring said technology >)>is a good thing. [ ... ] >) >) First, I'd like to say that I disagree with one of the premises in >)the above statement. > Which one? "Anything that can be done ... is a good thing." And please note that just because I disagree with that doesn't mean I don't abide by the U.S. laws which govern it. There are legal ways of working to change U.S. policies (writing to congressmen, for example). > )That out of the way...the problem of controlling >)technology transfer belongs to the government, not the net. > Let us say that the government makes it illegal for an American to >supply high technology products (e.g. M68020 processors, Ada compilers, >whatever) to the Soviet Union. [ ... ] > The bottom line is that the problem of controlling one's own behavior >(in compliance with applicable laws) rests with the individual. I didn't say "not the individual", I said "not the net". If the net is viewed as a collection of posters, your point makes sense--I was probably unclear on this. But if it's viewed as a collection of sites, which may post messages and/or provide services such as message forwarding, I stand by my contention that it isn't the net's job. >)If I mail >)a package to the U.S.S.R., the government will presumably check that >)it doesn't have anything which is sensitive in it. If I give it to a >)friend in, say, Nicaragua, the U.S. government wouldn't see it. But >)that's a government problem > Let's say an individual mails a package to the USSR, and the >government fails to recognize the book in the package as a copy of, >say, detailed design documentation for a US "spy" satellite, and lets >the package through. You contend that the individual has done nothing >wrong, or that the government's failure to catch the individual >exonerates him. No, I don't. What I'm trying to say (and not doing very well, I guess) is that there are two responsibilities: 1. An individual U.S. citizen has the responsibility to abide by U.S. law, including not exporting sensitive data. 2. The government has the responsibility to enforce its laws. If an individual deliberately breaks the law, it's the government's problem to enforce it (and/or punish the individual responsible). > [...] > )--I'm not prevented from mailing packages >)to the U.S.S.R. just because they *might* contain sensitive data. >) > But you should prevent yourself from mailing any packages to the >USSR that *do* contain sensitive data. [...] I agree; that comes under #1 above. My point is that just because something *might* be used to break the law doesn't mean it should be illegal. For instance, I *could* drive while drunk--but that doesn't (necessarily) mean that all driving should be illegal. >) Umm, last I checked USENET was not a United States-only system. If >)somebody in, say, England wants to set up a connection to the >)U.S.S.R., is the US going to stop them? How? > No. That would be Mrs. Thatcher's responsibility. I believe that >we have agreements with the relevant governments to prevent these >transfers [...] We have agreements to prevent transfers of sensitive data; do we also have ones which cover public information channels? (I don't know, I'm by no means an expert in this kind of thing.) > [...] >) If the government is worried about this, they could monitor overseas >)links. Or maybe a solution would be to have a single system hung off >)the backbone which will serve *only* as a gateway to a single machine >)in the U.S.S.R. It could even be run by the government. > My point is that the federal government (or as you correctly point out >several governments) have a role here. And that means a veto over the >whole notion. Which agency to contact is the next question. I don't think it would be possible for the government to veto the whole notion. They could deny federal funding to sites which carry the group; this would be a little heavy-handed, though (in my opinion). Maybe the solution is to create two new USENET nodes: 'east' and 'west', say, with 'West' being a U.S. government site and 'East' being a U.S.S.R. government site. That way the only link could be between the 'east' and 'west' machines, and both sides could impose their censorship/monitoring on it openly (obviously if a connection is ever created it will be monitored closely by both sides). > [ ... ] > I just say no. I'm not so sure. I think it's worth a try, at least.... > Regards, >-- >Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, >Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to > | his powers of resistance. >with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz +---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | "UNIX: Just Say No!" | "Do worry...be SAD!" | | Michigan State University | rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu | | +---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+