PGP 2.5 Warning

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I wrote:

> This should be obvious, but probably bears repetition anyway:

> FREEMAN BEWARE: By switching to PGP 2.5 you would commence to affirm
> with each message you send that you are a subject of the U.S. State.

I have been asked in email what would happen if a person outside the
U.S. were to use it.

If a person were initially not a subject (``outside'') of the U.S., he
would destroy that status in the process of acquiring PGP 2.5.  This
follows from the MIT announcement:

> Date: Mon, 9 May 94 09:32:39 -0400
> From: "Jeffrey I. Schiller" <jis@mit.edu>
> Subject: MIT Announces PGP 2.5

[...]

> This distribution of PGP 2.5, available in source code form, is
> available only to users within the United States of America....

> Users in the United States of America can obtain information via FTP

[...]

For non-commercial use, one has a choice between PGP 2.3a and PGP 2.5.
For a ``United States of America'' user, the legality of 2.3a is
questioned on patent grounds, but 2.5 is available.  For a free
(non-national) person, on the other hand, 2.5 is unavailable according
to the MIT announcement above, but there is no problem with 2.3a.  The
situation seems contrived to force each non-commercial PGP user to
declare whether he is free or a ``United States of America'' user.

Confusion may arise by interpreting ``user in the United States of
America'' as a statement about geography rather than one about
allegiance.  This would be a mistake.  The founding documents of the
United States of America imply that their government is only of those
who consent, so it is clearly a matter of allegiance, not geography.
Acceptance of PGP 2.5 is one way to signal such consent, since 2.3a is
available.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLddLNcDhz44ugybJAQFoYwQAurznG2insQ74/JaJocPy7fxAqHWkBxSd
U94kYU78NFWiv1P4ef9btiaBcCAWNC8LnzR/hVlvsLminRoNX8rDEP+B1wRDp0mR
yMJlQ3X34cJYQvpEVwuOLJRvDS74p9r2OcNU9yB+CNEhHw8oIixdLIa/LbJT2ait
N1Ny3UjSMQE=
=s+8g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 16 May 1994, John E. Kreznar wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> > This should be obvious, but probably bears repetition anyway:
> 
> > FREEMAN BEWARE: By switching to PGP 2.5 you would commence to affirm
> > with each message you send that you are a subject of the U.S. State.
> 
> I have been asked in email what would happen if a person outside the
> U.S. were to use it.
> 
> If a person were initially not a subject (``outside'') of the U.S., he
> would destroy that status in the process of acquiring PGP 2.5.  This
> follows from the MIT announcement:

So, you are saying that I will be automatically subject to US law if I 
use this product?  Hmmm, wonder what that does in terms of citizenship 
issues - as far as _I_ am concerned, the only law that has jurisdiction 
for me is NZ law, and US law can go get hanged, no?

On a different note, where are the PKP patents registered, and how?  Are 
they under the Int. Patent Coop. Treaty?  If so, they might have some 
validity here...
	- Smrf.
 
--
'I'm out walking the drummer, man!' | robinson_m@ix.wcc.govt.nz
        # Floyd Pepper		    | mjrobins@nyx10.cs.du.edu

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

"Smrf." <smrf@mu.sans.vuw.ac.nz> writes:

> So, you are saying that I will be automatically subject to US law if I 
> use this product?  Hmmm, wonder what that does in terms of citizenship 
> issues - as far as _I_ am concerned, the only law that has jurisdiction 
> for me is NZ law, and US law can go get hanged, no?

You enjoy a measure of protection because a United States of America
person doesn't have the knee-jerk tendency to presume jurisdiction over
a person at your geographic remove that he has for person located in
North America.  A person located in North America is more at risk of
losing her freeman status by switching to 2.5 (or now 2.6), and must be
careful not to give her neighbor, who may be a United States of America
person, an excuse to invoke his government's tyranny.

It's hard for me to believe that conditions are that different for you,
or do you surrender without qualification to jurisdiction of NZ law?

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLdheQcDhz44ugybJAQFUOwP9HicpST9vnyTryCMvoUsoBkwtVdzikkaF
shcKYWq67uIe+IfpUp8yRxWUsOz0T7dey4PjUqWiz8FY93kfLq9PocnP9mtQuqBT
XE3rfg7TA/bPooE0iGUvsv/Yvqe188Bbnacqix5gmi7JNfknpCApIRdgMiMDkY7V
MDjguy44bls=
=3cxW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----