On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 07:38:46PM +0000, James Troup wrote: > > I dont like the fact that i need to put limitations on my ftp/web > > server for not beeing reachable from those t7 countries. > > You _don't_ need to do so; I didn't say so in my mail, and much more > to the point, our lawyer didn't say so. The fact that you seem to > want to think you do, is both your invention and your problem.
Am i misreading ? "D: If it is technically infeasible to block access from the T7 countries to a web (or ftp, etc) server, does due diligence require extreme measures? Does the defacto standard of (US) industry common-practice meet due diligence? The de facto industry standard should suffice. I hope that the government will recognize that any system devised by man can be defeated, with enough effort." The defacto industry standard is imho much higher than the also mentioned blocks of reverse mapped ip address blocking of ccTLDs. Just to mention the "Giantic" firewall built for the govt. of china. "Please keep in mind that persons in the US who may post to sites outside the US are governed by US law, even if they do so in their individual capacity. Therefore, you may want to warn persons in the US that their posting to the current crypto server outside the US are still subject to US regulations." From my reading this means - Anyone - Globally not meeting the requirement of "the de facto industry standard" of blocking access to the T7 countries will be held responsible when entering the US and/or the one actually putting the software in question into the archive will be held responsible as soon as there is knowledge of the multi-step export. Flo -- Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-5201-669912 Nine nineth on september the 9th Welcome to the new billenium
pgpE5blRpuw7z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
