Re: Zimmermann interrogated without counsel

The basic problem here is that Constitutional limits on police powers
have long been at their weakest at the border or at "border
equivalents" like international airports. More recently the
protections have been loosened within the US near borders, which
accounts for police-state practices like the INS checkpoint north of
San Diego that I have to drive through on my way to LA. It's an open
secret that it's as much for drugs being carried by Americans as it is
for illegal aliens from Mexico.

Looks like all you have to do is to weaken a protection for some
"worthwhile" and supposedly narrow reason and you can count on the
feds to exploit it fully for any other purpose they can get away with.

As I understand it, you have no obligation to do or say anything to a
Customs officer when entering the country other than to identify
yourself, hand over your passport, and permit a search of your
luggage. It's not even clear you have to answer their questions as to
where you've been. Dunno what would happen if they searched your
laptop and found encrypted material...

Phil

>
>As I understand it, you have no obligation to do or say anything to a
>Customs officer when entering the country other than to identify
>yourself, hand over your passport, and permit a search of your
>luggage. It's not even clear you have to answer their questions as to
>where you've been. Dunno what would happen if they searched your
>laptop and found encrypted material...

I'm going to be taking a business trip to Europe next month, and just to
find out what the procedure is I decided to get a "temporary export
authorization" for a so-called "exportable" AT&T telephone security
device (model 3600-F).  This is the "bump in a cord" voice encryptor.
The "F" model is supposed to be approved for "fast track" export; it
doesn't use Clipper or DES, but rather some exportable algorithm.

About two months ago I called our (AT&T's) export lawyer division.  They
said "ok, this will be easy".  Well, sure enough the other day I got back
my "license for the temporary export of unclassified defense articles".
The form on which this is printed is apparently used for everything in the
ITAR; it took me a while to realize that the part of the form where they
want the "serial number of aircraft or vessel" is to be filled in only if
I'm actually exporting a plane or ship and does not refer to the plane
on which I'm flying out of the country.  (Where is the serial number on a
767, anyway?)

Anyway, the "fast track" procedure seems to be as follows.  I have to leave
from an international airport with a customs agent present.  Before I leave
I have to make up an invoice for the devices (even though I'm not selling
them to anyone) that states that "These commodities are authorized by the US
government for export only to Belgium and the United Kingdom [the
countries I'm visiting].  They may not be resold, transshipped, or
otherwised disposed of in any country, either in their original form
or incorporated into other end-items without the prior written approval of
the US Department of State."  At the airport, I have to fill out something
called a "shippers export declaration" (SED) and copy the same wording onto
it.   Then I present my invoice, SED, and export license to a customs
official at the airport before I leave (this will be fun - I leave from
JFK, where Customs is in a different building from departing flights).  The
Customs officer then endorces my license to show what I'm taking out of the
country.

On the way back in, I'm supposed to "declare" my item (even though it
was manufatured in the US) and show them my license, SED, and invoice,
and they're supposed to endorse the license to show that I have, in fact,
returned the "defense article".

I'd hate to know what the "slow track" is like....

I'll post a report of what actually happens when I try to follow these
procedures.

-matt

There was supposed to be an exemption for temporary export of
cryptography by US citizens for personal use overseas. At least it was
announced last spring by Martha Harris at the State Dept.

There's some confusion about whether the exemption ever actually took
effect; the current consensus appears to be that it has not. So I
guess you still have to go through the formality.

Phil

>There was supposed to be an exemption for temporary export of
>cryptography by US citizens for personal use overseas. At least it was
>announced last spring by Martha Harris at the State Dept.
>
>There's some confusion about whether the exemption ever actually took
>effect; the current consensus appears to be that it has not. So I
>guess you still have to go through the formality.
>
>Phil
>

According to our export guy (and also someone I spoke with at NIST)
that exemption is not yet in effect.

-matt