[Noisebridge-discuss] deep crack announcement .. tax issue/

[jim]

On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 19:22 -0700, Sai Emrys wrote:
> 2009/10/8 Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net>:
> >> AFAIU the current discussion, that's the value proposal of this to NB
> >> as is - as a museum piece, not really so much as an actual tool.
> >> Perhaps there are more such things worthy of more active display?
> >> (E.g. perhaps the stuff from Arse & Open House?)
JS: seems this is a tool for the use of those members 
interested in this project, not something intended to 
appeal to the general membership, similar to the photo 
dark room for photography or the electronics tools for 
electronicistas. 

> >
> > How can you say that when I am advocating using it as a tool for a
> > specific project?! :-(
> 
> I didn't mean that to denigrate its actual utility or your desire to
> use it. What I meant is simply that
> a) it's fairly expensive to run, thus meaning that projects that elect
> to pay for its cost will be fewish 
JS: those sponsoring it have promised to pay for the 
electrical cost. 

> b) DES cracking is of limited utility compared to its interest as a NB
> museum piece - it seems to me that your proposal for why the general
> membership ought to be interested was more aimed at the latter (i.e.
> "it's a cool piece of hacking history")
JS: seems no claim of general benefit, just a desire on 
the part of some to work on this project. 
> 
> Mind, I don't see its being a museum piece and its being functional as
> at all in conflict. Actually, having functional things is better; it's
> what makes Exploratorium fun, and I'd consider that place at least
> half museum-ish. (If you don't, reinterpret my use of 'museum' to be
> whatever the hell Exploratorium is to you.)
> 
> 2009/10/8 Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>:
> > A part of U.S. export law that has long been a concern for researchers
> > is the notion of a "deemed export" (which exists in some form under
> > both the ITAR and EAR regimes):
> >
> > http://www.bis.doc.gov/deemedexports/deemedexportsfaqs.html
> 
> 2009/10/8 Jonathan Foote <jtfoote at ieee.org>:
> > Used to work on ITAR stuff in grad school (advanced semi
> > manufacturing, go figure). Foreign grad students (and professors) were
> > specifically forbidden access.
> >
> > from http://epic.org/crypto/export_controls/itar.html:
> >
> > "Export means, for purposes of this subchapter:
> >  ...
> > (d) Disclosing or transferring technical data to a foreign person, whether
> > in the United States or abroad"
> 
> Looks like my reading definitely missed this; I defer to your greater
> experience. Thanks for the links & quotes; I always find it
> interesting how mega-organizations (like our dear feds) try to control
> things that are so trivially decentralized. ;-)
> 
> This seems to indicate though that there might be restrictions on
> who's allowed to talk about what and where with this (e.g. since we
> have non-US-citizen list members, hypothetically we can't discuss
> DeepCrack's usage or mechanism here?).
> 
> This seems both pretty lame and un-Noisebridge-y. OTOH, it also seems
> to me to be totally unenforceable and extremely unlikely to actually
> be an issue.
> 
> But that's a risk/reward judgment for those who actually have a stake
> in it to make, which I am not. I don't really have any opinion on
> whether NB ought to have it, anyway; I just think it's kinda shiny.
JS: on the damage-likelihood plot, damage to noisebridge seems 
not big and likelihood negligible. 

> 
> - Sai
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss