On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:01:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Michael Poole writes: > > > Sven Luther writes: > > > >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > >>> > >>> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what > >>> we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requires us to send > >>> the government a copy *every time* someone downloads), I think we would > >> > >> And even that, i think is not acceptable. Already our current policy to > >> inform > >> the US governement of every contribution a member makes is an dangerous > >> privacy concern. And if you would go the chinese dissident way (or maybe > >> the > >> iraqui freedom figther way :), a maintainer could get in trouble over this > >> reporting. > > > > Come again? Under the current rules, we have to give the US > > government a (single) source code copy of any software that we > > distribute. The whole world can download the same software. > > How does that constitute any sort of privacy concern? > > We have to give the US government a copy of any software controlled by > the crypto export regulations, I should say. Time for morning caffeine.
Well, i think the crypto in main compromise was simply to send them notice of all packages, in order to be free to not check if a particular new upload contained crypto ot not. Friendly, Sven Luther
