// COMPLETE THREAD

NAVAHO

2 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child

NODE f5667d11NAVAHO
As most all on this list are aware, the U.S. Army made frequent and
successful use of our indigenous people (often Navaho) for battle field
communications during WW II.  Now obviously Navaho is a widely recognized
language and even our 'oppressive" government wouldn't dare tell such
speakers, who might be under investigation for some alledged criminal
activity, that were engaging in international communications that they
could not use this or a similar form of communciation because LE might not
be able to interpret its meaning.

What would be the legal status of communicating with a language, too
complex for easy human use, which required a computer to structure and
translate between other human languages?  What would be the ITAR
implication of exporting such linguistic software?

What about speaking or writing riddles or other 'indirect' coding in which
the true meaning of spoken or written communication is other than the
appearent (literature, especially mysteries have them)?  Could export of
software designed to create/interpret such riddles or 'hidden' meanings
come under ITAR regulation?

-- Steve



PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61  81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Snoop Daty Data           | Internet: azur@netcom.com
Grinder                   |
Sacred Cow Meat Co.       |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Counter-cultural technology development our specialty.

Vote Libertarian.

Just say NO to prescription DRUGS.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for
 the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
    -- C.S. Lewis

"Surveillence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus, potential
entertainment."
    -- G. Beato
NODE 1dd08fc6Re: NAVAHO
Steve Schear wrote:
> As most all on this list are aware, the U.S. Army made frequent and
> successful use of our indigenous people (often Navaho) for battle
> field communications during WW II.  Now obviously Navaho is a widely
> recognized language and even our 'oppressive" government wouldn't dare
> tell such speakers, who might be under investigation for some alledged
> criminal activity, that were engaging in international communications
> that they could not use this or a similar form of communciation
> because LE might not be able to interpret its meaning.

Well, sad to say, a lot of Navajos are being used as intermediaries for 
"black-ops" projects.  It's the sovereignty scam (used when it's useful 
to them), like British subjects intercepting U.S. phone calls, etc.

> What would be the legal status of communicating with a language, too
> complex for easy human use, which required a computer to structure and
> translate between other human languages?  What would be the ITAR
> implication of exporting such linguistic software?

You're getting close to something.  There's going to have to be a 
definition of intent for international (and eventually domestic) audio 
communications, to establish the originator's intent, even ignoring 
stego issues.

> What about speaking or writing riddles or other 'indirect' coding in
> which the true meaning of spoken or written communication is other
> than the appearent (literature, especially mysteries have them)?
> Could export of software designed to create/interpret such riddles or
> 'hidden' meanings come under ITAR regulation?

If they're not careful, they could open up a juicy can of worms.  For 
example, when the L.A. Times ran a recent headline to the effect that 
areas around China were becoming a hotbed of weapons dealing and so on, 
you could interpret that (if you're paying attention) as an invitation 
to weapons dealers and buyers to "come and get it while it's hot".

Look at the time lines for getting secure crypto into the hands of the 
more-or-less average person, then imagine a much shorter time line for 
the spinoff programs that do these specialized tasks. Short time lines 
don't give bureaucrats much time to work with, so if such programs get 
into wide use, the govt. will have to generalize the prohibitions more 
than they've announced so far.