12 ms·

ITAR according to Twitter https://twitter.com/vk5qi/status/1591628725141270528 https://twitter.com/vk5qi/status/1591628725141270528 https://spectrum.ieee.org/

by dmw_ng 4y ago

ITAR according to Twitter https://twitter.com/vk5qi/status/1591628725141270528 https://twitter.com/vk5qi/status/1591628725141270528 https://spectrum.ieee.org/passive-radar-with-sdr https://spectrum.ieee.org/passive-radar-with-sdr

sneak 4y ago
Could it be time for another Bernstein v US sort of case? The idea that source code publication can be restricted (prior restraint) by classifying it as “arms” seems like an attempt at an end run around the bill of rights.
- rtpg 4y ago
  We spent a lot of years with export controls on a lot of things, and continue to have them on many pieces of software. Trying to do legal jujitsu to say “the code is speech”, especially given SCOTUSs current makeup, and the context of this being components of literal weapons systems… you’re not gonna get far IMO
  - netr0ute 4y ago
    This doesn't hold up if the software is baked into things that are undoubtedly protected by the 1st Amendment. What's going to happen if a music album uses ITAR technology?
    - some_random 4y ago
      How is a music album free speechier than a github repo?
      - netr0ute 4y ago
        Music has always been protected from the beginning of the Constitution and there have been zero (0) efforts to prevent its protection, while online code repos have only existed for about 30 years and don't have that same cachet yet.
        DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
        > Music has always been protected from the beginning of the Constitution and there have been zero (0) efforts to prevent its protection Tipper Gore?
        netr0ute 4y ago
        The music labels never actually got rid of anything in a technical sense, only added information in the form of a sticker.
        dandelany 4y ago
        This is a strange legal take. There is nothing about music that makes it special in the eyes of the law, it is speech like any other, subject to the same protections and restrictions as publishing a book. If you release an album containing nuclear secrets on Spotify, an injunction, removal and arrest will follow.
        netr0ute 4y ago
        We don't actually know that this is true, because if you don't take the law literally like a lot of coders do, then that scenario isn't known to be possible because the format is a more explicit from of protected speech
        coretx 4y ago
        The opposite is true. Constitutions ( plural ) protect the access to, and therefore the production. This to the point that "protections" that don't contribute to primairily the access and secundairily to the production thereof could be deemed unconstitutional.
  - wnoise 4y ago
    That just means it's covered by both the first and second amendments.
- michaelt 4y ago
  The krakensdr folks could take this fight for code-as-free-speech all the way to the supreme court. Or they could delete the code, spend their time engineering instead of lawyering, secure in the knowledge a copy of the code is almost certain to end up hosted somewhere outside the US anyway.
  - q-big 4y ago
    Since the code is open source, any other person could publish the latest code dump as a book and attempt to go with the "free speech" arguments through the courts.
- bananapub 4y ago
  Lots of speech is illegal or defacto illegal in the US , though, why would this particular one get undone?
- irjustin 4y ago
  This is an interesting concept and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I wasn't aware of the case. My take is it will be significantly more nuanced if it goes to a fight. Bernstein v US is too blanket of a ruling to say "all code is 100% protected under free speech". It's like trying to argue "all speech is protected under free speech" - this is a gross misunderstanding. There are clear examples of things you cannot freely say - one of them being classified information[0]. Otherwise Snowden wouldn't have to fear anything (he absolutely does). Like wise, saying all code is free speech is too obtuse. If my code was open source "puts classified_information_str" I'd be in lots of trouble. Where this falls isn't up to me to decide - I'm not smart enough, but it's just not so clear cut. [0] https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/859/classified-documents https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/859/classified-...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - butlerm 4y ago
    There is (generally speaking) no prior restraint against publishing classified information in the United States. Snowden is in trouble for disclosing classified information that he didn't have a right to disclose by virtue of his employment. Anyone not so restricted can (generally speaking) publish any classified information they get a hold of, although they might be strongly discouraged from doing so for a variety of reasons. It is like the situation with trade secrets - anyone can publish trade secrets except those who have a duty not to disclose them, and often they can as well once the secret becomes public knowledge. There are, however, statutory exceptions for national defense information like plans to a military base or plans and specifications for certain weapons. In those cases it doesn't matter how you came into possession of the related documents you can't legally publish it anyway.
    - CuriousCosmic 4y ago
      To add onto this, when it comes to "classified" information, it generally falls into two types: 1. Actual classified information (Secret, TS, SCI, SAP). This information is classified by people with clearances according to a set of guidelines and all information has to be more or less manually classified. If you were to independently produce this information (without knowledge or information from the classified project), you are legally in the clear to publish. 2. Restricted information (RD, FRD, SNM). Unlike with classified information, what is or isn't considered restricted is regulated by the DOE. Because of this, information can be "restricted at inception" which prevents it from being published regardless of how it was obtained or produced. Point being that just because information isn't classified and you may have acquired it through independent means, you can still be restricted from sharing it because the US has deemed it "inherently dangerous" to national security. Note: I don't think the code in question could by any stretch be considered RD or FRD.

by dmw_ng 4y ago

sneak 4y ago

Could it be time for another Bernstein v US sort of case? The idea that source code publication can be restricted (prior restraint) by classifying it as “arms” seems like an attempt at an end run around the bill of rights.

rtpg 4y ago
We spent a lot of years with export controls on a lot of things, and continue to have them on many pieces of software. Trying to do legal jujitsu to say “the code is speech”, especially given SCOTUSs current makeup, and the context of this being components of literal weapons systems… you’re not gonna get far IMO
- netr0ute 4y ago
  This doesn't hold up if the software is baked into things that are undoubtedly protected by the 1st Amendment. What's going to happen if a music album uses ITAR technology?
  - some_random 4y ago
    How is a music album free speechier than a github repo?
    - netr0ute 4y ago
      Music has always been protected from the beginning of the Constitution and there have been zero (0) efforts to prevent its protection, while online code repos have only existed for about 30 years and don't have that same cachet yet.
      - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
        > Music has always been protected from the beginning of the Constitution and there have been zero (0) efforts to prevent its protection Tipper Gore?
        netr0ute 4y ago
        The music labels never actually got rid of anything in a technical sense, only added information in the form of a sticker.
      - dandelany 4y ago
        This is a strange legal take. There is nothing about music that makes it special in the eyes of the law, it is speech like any other, subject to the same protections and restrictions as publishing a book. If you release an album containing nuclear secrets on Spotify, an injunction, removal and arrest will follow.
        netr0ute 4y ago
        We don't actually know that this is true, because if you don't take the law literally like a lot of coders do, then that scenario isn't known to be possible because the format is a more explicit from of protected speech
      - coretx 4y ago
        The opposite is true. Constitutions ( plural ) protect the access to, and therefore the production. This to the point that "protections" that don't contribute to primairily the access and secundairily to the production thereof could be deemed unconstitutional.
- wnoise 4y ago
  That just means it's covered by both the first and second amendments.
michaelt 4y ago
The krakensdr folks could take this fight for code-as-free-speech all the way to the supreme court. Or they could delete the code, spend their time engineering instead of lawyering, secure in the knowledge a copy of the code is almost certain to end up hosted somewhere outside the US anyway.
- q-big 4y ago
  Since the code is open source, any other person could publish the latest code dump as a book and attempt to go with the "free speech" arguments through the courts.
bananapub 4y ago
Lots of speech is illegal or defacto illegal in the US , though, why would this particular one get undone?
irjustin 4y ago
This is an interesting concept and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I wasn't aware of the case. My take is it will be significantly more nuanced if it goes to a fight. Bernstein v US is too blanket of a ruling to say "all code is 100% protected under free speech". It's like trying to argue "all speech is protected under free speech" - this is a gross misunderstanding. There are clear examples of things you cannot freely say - one of them being classified information[0]. Otherwise Snowden wouldn't have to fear anything (he absolutely does). Like wise, saying all code is free speech is too obtuse. If my code was open source "puts classified_information_str" I'd be in lots of trouble. Where this falls isn't up to me to decide - I'm not smart enough, but it's just not so clear cut. [0] https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/859/classified-documents https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/859/classified-...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- butlerm 4y ago
  There is (generally speaking) no prior restraint against publishing classified information in the United States. Snowden is in trouble for disclosing classified information that he didn't have a right to disclose by virtue of his employment. Anyone not so restricted can (generally speaking) publish any classified information they get a hold of, although they might be strongly discouraged from doing so for a variety of reasons. It is like the situation with trade secrets - anyone can publish trade secrets except those who have a duty not to disclose them, and often they can as well once the secret becomes public knowledge. There are, however, statutory exceptions for national defense information like plans to a military base or plans and specifications for certain weapons. In those cases it doesn't matter how you came into possession of the related documents you can't legally publish it anyway.
  - CuriousCosmic 4y ago
    To add onto this, when it comes to "classified" information, it generally falls into two types: 1. Actual classified information (Secret, TS, SCI, SAP). This information is classified by people with clearances according to a set of guidelines and all information has to be more or less manually classified. If you were to independently produce this information (without knowledge or information from the classified project), you are legally in the clear to publish. 2. Restricted information (RD, FRD, SNM). Unlike with classified information, what is or isn't considered restricted is regulated by the DOE. Because of this, information can be "restricted at inception" which prevents it from being published regardless of how it was obtained or produced. Point being that just because information isn't classified and you may have acquired it through independent means, you can still be restricted from sharing it because the US has deemed it "inherently dangerous" to national security. Note: I don't think the code in question could by any stretch be considered RD or FRD.