4 ms·

If you actually read OP's link, the charges seem to have nothing to do with the fact that these individuals once worked for the US gov. Instead, the US federal

If you actually read OP's link, the charges seem to have nothing to do with the fact that these individuals once worked for the US gov. Instead, the US federal government seems to be asserting that knowledge of offensive security tools and practices in Cybersecurity consultancy is somehow ITAR restricted in the same way that a weapon blueprint would be. That strikes me as absolutely preposterous and I'm disappointed the defendants settled rather than pushed back on obvious federal overreach into the lives and careers of private persons.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
There's a lot of stuff that's ITAR restricted. You can't be privy to classified information such as submarine prop design, or turbine blade design, and then branch off your own for other clients using said information.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sterlind 5y ago
  Under ITAR you can't even sell your own submarine props to foreign countries, even if you were never exposed to classified designs, right? That's why ITAR originally applied to PGP.
  - sneak 5y ago
    Yes, and I thought DJB settled once and for all that computer code doesn’t fall under ITAR.
LatteLazy 5y ago
Settle now OR spend 20 years and millions of dollars fighting it and relying on judges who've never used a computer to understand complicated technical matters...
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I think the number of judges who have never used a computer is going to be vanishingly small by now.
darkarmani 5y ago
Doesn't it say one of the individuals is an ex-US citizen? I'm curious around that mention. How is he being charged in that case?
Cd00d 5y ago
ITAR is extremely restrictive. I used to build sensing systems, where I'd include an off-the-shelf infra-red camera. Couldn't sell the combined system abroad because the IR was ITAR restricted.
sigmar 5y ago
"Prior to their departure, U.S. Company One repeatedly informed its employees, including the defendants, that the services they were providing constituted “defense services” under the ITAR, and that U.S. persons could not lawfully provide such services to U.A.E." If the above was documented, I don't think "I didn't know" would have worked in court. Also even if they fought the ITAR charges, they were accused of CFAA charges

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

There's a lot of stuff that's ITAR restricted. You can't be privy to classified information such as submarine prop design, or turbine blade design, and then branch off your own for other clients using said information.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sterlind 5y ago
Under ITAR you can't even sell your own submarine props to foreign countries, even if you were never exposed to classified designs, right? That's why ITAR originally applied to PGP.
- sneak 5y ago
  Yes, and I thought DJB settled once and for all that computer code doesn’t fall under ITAR.

LatteLazy 5y ago

Settle now OR spend 20 years and millions of dollars fighting it and relying on judges who've never used a computer to understand complicated technical matters...

jacquesm 5y ago
I think the number of judges who have never used a computer is going to be vanishingly small by now.

darkarmani 5y ago

Doesn't it say one of the individuals is an ex-US citizen? I'm curious around that mention. How is he being charged in that case?

Cd00d 5y ago

ITAR is extremely restrictive. I used to build sensing systems, where I'd include an off-the-shelf infra-red camera. Couldn't sell the combined system abroad because the IR was ITAR restricted.

sigmar 5y ago

"Prior to their departure, U.S. Company One repeatedly informed its employees, including the defendants, that the services they were providing constituted “defense services” under the ITAR, and that U.S. persons could not lawfully provide such services to U.A.E." If the above was documented, I don't think "I didn't know" would have worked in court. Also even if they fought the ITAR charges, they were accused of CFAA charges