APO
National Hazard
Posts: 627
Registered: 28-12-2012
Location: China Lake
Member Is Offline
Mood: Refluxing
|
|
ITAR Revision
Hello, recently I have heard some speculation on the threat brought by revisions to ITAR. ITAR stands for International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
Here is the Wikipedia page about ITAR, and here is where information on the ITAR revision can be found.
From reading the revisions, it sounds really concerning that they're planning to expand and/or alter the reach of the regulations which seems to make
various information subject to restriction. From what I've read so far, many legal definitions, exemption lists, and et cetera will be changed. This
is particularly concerning regarding "technical data" among other things:
"Paragraph (a)(1) also sets forth a broader range of examples of formats that “technical data” may take, such as diagrams, models, formulae,
tables, engineering designs and specifications, computer-aided design files, manuals or documentation, or electronic media, that may constitute
“technical data.”"
Now, this is being done by an executive order, and explicitly brings up the publishing of information on the internet ; both of which together are
concerning due to the nefarious nature of past action and intention. I don't know if this is or isn't meant to target anything in particular, but much
of what I have seen and read make this sound like it is.
Of course as a legal document it is kind of hard to follow and interpret, is fairly comprehensive, and is quite lengthy. So, I would like some help
and discussion in understanding what these revisions mean to us.
Some Questions:
Will we notice any effect on our usual internet activities like researching and viewing things that might be classified as "technical data"?
Will information and such already on the internet suddenly be restricted?
How do we contrast what is, isn't, and has been exempt?
Will these proposed changes actually have any new effect on the distribution of information?
Should we be concerned and/or combat this?
The implications of this could be and have been interpreted as potentially very far reaching. I would really, really appreciate some insight and
perspective on all of this. I strongly advise everyone to take a long, hard, and careful look at all of this.
"Damn it George! I told you not to drop me!"
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Do you believe that you would ever receive any honest answer to your legitimate questions unless you, having shown good cause, are officially
designated a member of the "exempted class" deemed qualified to have such questions answered? Of course as part of your qualification review for a
security clearance and as part of your continuing psychological profile evaluation dossier, you will have to submit a lengthy written dissertation
explaining in great detail how you feel about this state security protocol being effected. Citizen, tell us, don't you just love the new world order
and rules? A sonnet might be appropriate to poetically express your affections.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
YUP
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=62691
|
|
|
Praxichys
International Hazard
Posts: 1063
Registered: 31-7-2013
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Coprecipitated
|
|
This looks like they're trying to make prosecution easier after the Chi Mak incident. Basically, some idiot working for a defense company decided to repeatedly release sensitive information to both the public and
other countries, and got 24 years for it.
If you are a defense contractor with special data security clearances in your country, you probably shouldn't be posing on this website. Otherwise,
all the information we handle here on SM is already in the public domain.
Even if we managed to get a hold of sensitive information, we would not be in trouble for sharing it. We are the public; we are not bound as a defense
group. Sanctions would be brought against whoever illegally released it, not us. If we found it online and repeated it here, they might as well go
attack Google for allowing it to show up in a search in the first place. Our reference library is really just a people-powered search engine.
And if you somehow get your greasy fingers on a defense document, you either have clearance or it's stolen property - if you decide to scan it and
post it, that's your fault for having no common sense.
This is no different than any company trying to maintain a competitive advantage against another. Releasing proprietary information will result in
prosecution. In the defense industry, it is treasonous to undermine anything considered to be a military advantage. We have nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
There is a balance of technical data vs free speech. Basically the changes are to try and make things technical data that are free speech. The
courts have previously limited what can be construed as technical data and the new rules seem to go against the prior rulings. Usual I am not a
lawyer disclaimer.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
