[Fwd: UK export controls -- White Paper causes alarm]

[Rigo Wenning <wenning2@rz.uni-sb.de>]

FYI

Stanton McCandlish wrote:
> 
> << start of forwarded material >>
> 
> X-Sender: afowler@www.eff.org
> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:25:45 -0400
> To: eff-staff@eff.org
> From: Alexander Fowler <afowler@eff.org>
> Subject: Fwd: UK export controls -- White Paper causes alarm
> 
> >Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:53:43 -0400
> >From: Mich Kabay <mkabay@compuserve.com>
> >Subject: NEWS: UK export controls -- White Paper causes alarm
> >Sender: Mich Kabay <mkabay@compuserve.com>
> >To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >
> >ICSA PROJECT(S):  ATTORNEYS, CRYPTO, FRIENDS, ISPSEC, ROSE
> >
> >
> >-------------Forwarded Message-----------------
> >
> >Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:25:36 +0100
> >From: Magnus Ramage <Magnus.Ramage@durham.ac.uk>
> >To: rre-maintainers@lists.gseis.ucla.edu
> >Subject: FW: For RRE: white paper that will interfere with research
> >
> >This is forwarded without Ross Anderson's permission, but it's come to me
> >via a public mailing list (that of the UK's Software Engineering
> >Association). DTI is the UK's Department of Trade and Industry.
> >
> >Magnus Ramage
> >Durham University
> >
> >====
> >
> >Subject: Urgent - white paper that will interfere with research
> >Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:33:46 +0100
> >From: Ross Anderson <Ross.Anderson@cl.cam.ac.uk>
> >
> >The DTI proposes to extend export control from physical goods to
> >intangibles. This will have very serious consequences for people doing
> >software research, development and teaching in fields like computer
> >security, aero engine management, flight control, nuclear power
> >station control, the verification of semiconductor designs, and much
> >more. Here's a note which I've been circulating among colleagues. We
> >need to push back hard on this one!
> >
> >Ross
> >
> >
> >**********************************************************************
> >
> >        Export Licensing of Intangibles - Executive Summary
> >
> >         Ross Anderson, Computer Laboratory, 7 August 1998
> >
> >The government proposes, in a recent white paper, to bring 'intangible
> >exports' within the export licensing regime. This will have extremely
> >unpleasant effects on universities as it will become an offence to
> >give foreign nationals (including colleagues and students) access to a
> >range of common technologies in electronic form, and a narrower range
> >orally or by demonstration. Previously, only the physical export of
> >material goods was covered by the regulations. The White Paper may be
> >found at: <http://www.dti.gov.uk/export.control/stratex/>; the
> >relevant section is 3.2.
> >
> >It is important that the academic community make its objections known
> >by the 30th September to the responsible minister, the Rt Hon Peter
> >Mandelson, and through whatever other channels as may be available.
> >
> >The proposed regulations would instantly terminate our research in
> >computer security; all the technologies of interest to us are on the
> >list, and all my research students are foreign nationals. It would
> >also force a rewrite of undergraduate lecture courses. Many other
> >research teams would also be badly affected; many of our researchers
> >in systems and communications work with anynchronous transfer mode,
> >which is a controlled technology. Neural networks, real-time expert
> >systems and even disassemblers fall under the net.
> >
> >Nor is the Computer Laboratory the only department at risk. The
> >`dual-use list', on which licensing requirements would at a minimum be
> >based, includes numerically controlled machine tools and fibre winding
> >equipment, semiconductor design and test equipment, robots, high
> >performance computers (even top end PCs), optical amplifiers and
> >software radios, areo engine control software, flight management
> >systems, as well as many lasers, gyros, accelerometers and similar
> >components. In effect, everything that the Pentagon considers to be
> >`high-tech' is listed.
> >
> >It will also be illegal to communicate, by demonstration or orally,
> >information relevant to `weapons of mass destruction and long range
> >missiles'. This is not precisely defined. Will it force the removal of
> >standard textbooks such as Fieser and Fieser's Organic Chemistry
> >(which contains the recipe for mustard gas) and the Feynman Lectures
> >in Physics (which describe how atom bombs work)? What is the exact
> >definition of such a weapon? Two weeks ago, a Palestinian was jailed
> >for life in New York for conspiring to deploy a `weapon of mass
> >destruction' - a pipe bomb which he intended to leave at a subway
> >station in a Jewish neighbourhood. Does this mean that the applied
> >mathematicians can no longer use the shaped charge as a standard
> >teaching example in second year fluid mechanics? Does Batchelor's
> >`Fluid Mechanics' become contraband?
> >
> >It appears that the current undergraduate courses in engineering,
> >computer science, mathematics, materials science, chemical engineering
> >and many of the natural sciences subjects including certainly physics,
> >chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology and pharmacology, will
> >potentially fall foul of the regulations.
> >
> >The policy appears to be an import. Americans have had controls on the
> >export of cryptography software by intangible means for some time,
> >while other countries have not. Their software companies find this a
> >serious inconvenience, as international companies seeking security
> >software must either buy it in somewhere like the UK, or go through a
> >long export licensing procedure to buy it in the US. US industry wants
> >the controls relaxed; the US government wants them tightened up
> >everywhere else. The DTI crypto policy group is close to GCHQ which
> >traditionally follows the American lead on such matters. However, their
> >proposed regulations are very much wider than the US constitution would
> >ever tolerate.
> >
> >For parliament to give ministers the arbitrary power to determine what
> >may be taught in university science courses, and what we may or may
> >not say to foreign students and colleagues (even where this material
> >is already public domain) should not be acceptable here either.
> >
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   Alexander Fowler
>   Director of Public Affairs
>   Electronic Frontier Foundation
> 
>   E-mail: afowler@eff.org
> 
>   Tel/Fax: 202 462 5826 (East Coast)
>   Tel: 415 436 9333; Fax 415 436 9993 (West Coast)
> 
>   You can find EFF on the Web at <http://www.eff.org>
> 
>   EFF supports the Global Internet Liberty Campaign
>   <http://www.gilc.org>
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> << end of forwarded material >>
> 
> --
> Stanton McCandlish      mech@eff.org       http://www.eff.org/~mech
> Program Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation
> voice: +1 415 436 9333 x105   fax: +1 415 436 9333   ICQ: 16631335
> PGPfone: 204.253.162.21  ICQ Pager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/16631335#pager

-- 
Rigo Wenning - Wiss. Mit. am Institut für Rechtsinformatik von 
Prof. Dr. Maximilian Herberger - http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/
mailto:wenning2@rz.uni-sb.de - Admin du web juridique de 
Sarrebruck - http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/france/