>Mark S. Miller wrote:
>> quote from defence lawyer Cindy Cohn:
>> "As a practical matter, the government is not enjoined from applying its
>> regulations--except to Bernstein. But we're one step closer to doing away
>> with the regulations,"
At 09:38 AM 5/7/99 , Ben Laurie wrote:
>Cindy Cohn has just said that you gotta wait :-)
Not exactly. I sounds to me like Cindy said the govt is only explicitly prohibited from going after Bernstein, not that they are allowed to go after anyone else. And the decision does rule that software of this sort is protected speech.
On http://eff.org/bernstein/19990507_eff_pressrel.html the EFF wrote:
>EFF anticipates that the government will ask for a stay of this ruling
>pending appeal. If granted, the stay would prohibit encryption exports even
>within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, including all federal courts in
>California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska,
>Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, until the matter is finally
As long as this precedent stands, it would seem to be clearly unconstitutional for them to go after anyone else. Since the govt hasn't even appealed yet, or asked for a "stay", this decision is currently uncontested. Put another way, it is now clearly legal (within the 9th Circuit) to exercise your free speech rights to post software, whether or not they come after you. Accordingly, check out my new home page: http://www.caplet.com/
Celebrating Freedom, --MarkM