Slashdot Mirror

Read some of the history of the postal laws and you'll see that the gov't has handled the oost office pretty well. (See page 235 of this PDF from senate.gov)

I'm not sure how the U.S. gov't can carry forward this responsibility in the world of global email...

(Hmm.. I aimed at Preview but hit Submit? Ouch.)

The two low estimates are http://www.sciam.com/2000/0300issue/0300alpert.htm l">$20-40 billion (US). That's one-third of last year's US budget surplus (or pick a favorite number yourself).

The digital millenium copyright act certainely posses distinct dangers to existing leeway under copyright laws. But it also forces the law to "smarten up" about the digital world. That said, there are *good* clauses, like specifically allowing reverse engineering for compatibility. BRAVO!.

Before people snipe at it based on the above (which is certainely a valid perspective), I would highly encourage people to peruse the bill for themselves. Its long, yes, but very clear and direct as these things go. The complete text can be found online, but there are also many good abridged versions! Give it a shot....this is a very accessible and important document for all of us (even non-americans).

Sometimes I think its better to institute a clear law I agree with less...than to continue using a decrepit and unreliable set of rulings. AT least now I have some idea of the "official" stance on things. :-)

-nullity-

I am nothing

Article 1, section 9 does not prohibit the Feds from taxing interstate commerce. See the GPO's excellent annotated US constitution.

"This prohibition applies only to the imposition of duties on
goods by reason of exportation. 1770 The word ''export'' signifies
goods exported to a foreign country, not to an unincorporated terri-tory
of the United States. [1771] A general tax laid on all property
alike, including that intended for export, is not within the prohibi-tion,
if it is not levied on goods in course of exportation nor because
of their intended exportation. [1772]".

Otherwise clause 8 prevents a taxation upon exports between states by reason of their being exports, or to favor one state over another. Even this is somewhat weak, since the courts have ruled, for example, that the feds can impose a windfall tax on Alaskan crude, because it was based on concerns other than geographic favoritism.

>> The constitution (amendments) says the states (not the federal) have the power to tax but not the right to tax (federales have nothing)

Actually article 1, section 8 specifically grants congress this power, with limitations:

SECTION 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay
and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare
of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall
be uniform throughout the United States.

Section 9, which specifically limits the powers given in section 8, prohibits direct taxes except in proportion to enumeration. What constitutes a "direct" tax as opposed to an "excise" or "duty" is a somewhat murky and technical and has changed over the years. By the late 19th c., prety much only income tax and property tax were direct taxes are direct tax. The sixteenth amendment allowed income taxes.

We have the technology now to send a man to mars. But the government would rather blow money on things like social programs and welfare which is creating more problems than it helps.

I would hardly say that money used to feed someone, or give them hospital care, is "blown". Aside from that, you do realize that the largest single government program is Social Security, which is paid for by your FICA taxes (not income taxes), and the next largest is defense? Entitlement ("social", "welfare") programs take up only
Where the Federal Budget dollar goes

The chart isn't very helpful in showing how the annual budget actually involves returning money to Social Security that was borrowed during the DEFENSE spending binge of the 1980-1995 period, but it does show how 14% is just paying interest on the national debt. We should be paying down both the Trust Fund loans and other government debts so that this crippling rate of interest can be reduced.

Today the government is all about managing problems, not solving them. God forbid they actually solve a problem and someone is out of a job.

I think you have a very short-sighted view of what government is actually doing, let alone what it can accomplish. Few people believe that we can "solve" poverty, for instance, but we can certainly provide a way out of poverty for those willing to make an effort.

What does this have to do with space? In any case, dealing with a given problem (poverty, crime, the economy) usually has to be combined with other objectives (science, education, tax reduction).
----

Here's the pdf of HR 1907 from the GPO.

Most interesting things in it I've found so far are:
1. Better regulation of the "invention promotion services" industry (ie. the "Do you have an idea?" TV spot guys).
2. Any 3rd party can request the reexamination of a patent based on prior art. (this IS DEFINITELY a step in the right direction...)





This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.

Bah. You might read the law before making such a statement. 18 USC 2512 does not even hint at any philosophy, for or against anything. It is simply a prohibition of the transfer (or advertising) of specific surveillance devices through the mail or through interstate and foreign commerce. (Look it up for yourself.)

The philosophy stated may or may not be behind the law (i.e., it may or may not have played a part in the passage of the law), but the law itself states nothing other than what you cannot do without facing criminal penalty.

Signal 11, with all due respect, I'm not sure that I agree with you.

I guess the first order of business is to say "the Computer Geek ticket." But since computer geekdom is what brings most of us to Slashdot, I think the computer part was a given.

Second, you're right, geeks are not limited to computers. But it is those computers that, by and large, bind us. As a large part of our lives, they can, at times, become a cause. (ie, etoy, encryption rights, privacy, etc.) So we choose to focus on that afor the purpose of this discussion.

Thirdly, you're right, geeks do have a wide range of political tastes. But it seems that most of the geeks that I know are Democrats, frequently with Liberatarian leanings. And the more that I've thought about this, the more that it seems logical to me.

We [computer] geeks are all about rules. Every language, standard, RFC and protocol is a set of rules by which we abide. Thanks to things like the RFC system, these rules can be changed. But we recognise the importance of a core set of standards by which further standards can be devloped.

This, IMHO, is quite similar to our US system involving the Constitution, with amendments and, of course, thousands upon thousands of laws within the scope of that Constitution. A rule set that can be modified, with subrules that must fit within the intitial standard.

To many of us, this is extremely logical. It fits into all of our programming knowledge neatly. So the Libertarian Party, whose core value is upholding the Constitution, is an extremely logical party to identify with. Further, Democrats, for the most part, tend to be more in line with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (Not always, of course, but more so than Republicans.)

So, we have a political leaning. And we have causes based on our desire to have the freedom to live the way that we like to. To export strong encryption, to use strong excryption, to be free from government monitoring, to be free from censorship, and to be free to engage in the computing practices that we see fit on our own systems, from disassembly to peaceable protest.

In conclusion: Yes, Signal 11, I think that there is a Geek Ticket. The candidate that best matches our common ideals to have the freedoms to take part in the open sourced, copylefted, quasi-socialist ventures that so many of us live for and love so much. We don't need to form a new party or anything, but I do think that it would be helpful for us to determine which candidate best meets our common ideals.

And that's why I think this is a great story with great threads. :)

But first, we'll have to work on getting Article II Clause 5 of the Constitution ammended so we can have the first non-natural born citizen as President. (What's up with that, anyway? All citizens are equal, but natural born citizens are "more equal"?)

I know of several DOD efforts underway now and listed in the Commerce Business Daily that are currently soliciting for "Light Weight" computing devices.

Or possibly Today's Commerce Business Daily, the Contractors Reference, These sites have thousands of RFP's each week.

Thoughts??

There is commercial software. Commercial software operates on standard capitalism principles -- there's a demand, you create a supply, you profit off meeting the need. This system is self-sustaining because the profits of one product can keep a group solvent enough to go on to create another (or to improve further on their original design).

There's free software. This is given out for free, for whatever purpose -- bragging rights, ulterior motives (like locking people into your platform or software model), or just because you're a really nice person who wants to share with the world.

Then there's open software. This is often done for bragging rights, for philanthropic reasons, and one major added bonus -- it allows other people to help you get around the platform issue that a single person in a garage might not be able to handle (I don't have an SGI Irix machine around, but if I release something open source, I'm sure someone could pick it up and make sure it works on their Indy).

Lately, commercial software has gotten a bad rap, and open source is in the limelight. The problem is that I personally don't see open source being self-sustaining. Look at this original message -- people writing the best open source code have lucrative day jobs. What happens if open source hits the marketplace in such a fashion that software companies can't compete aside from releasing free products (cf. DoJ vs. Microsoft)? There are quite a few major software development firms out there, sustained by a commercial market. If open source is reliant on people who have lucrative jobs (and thus, the outside money to support the open source development), what happens when those jobs slim down? Are we all going to become graduate students looking for grant money for the rest of our lives?

This is not to say that I disapprove of the free software initiative, or the open source efforts. However, I do not see either of these forms of software development becoming more prevalent (Drat, I can never remember how to spell that word) than commercial software.

Worse yet, I see people's hangups on the whole free software thing has being detrimental to what they often support. Linux is a free OS. Great. How do you expect to get very high-quality applications for it if you're unwilling to shell out the money to support people doing concentrated software development for that platform? I put down $50 for LokiSoft's port of "Civilization: Call To Power" and I fully plan to purchase Railroad Tycoon II as soon as I see it. These are quality software products that deserve my money, and I want to communicate to LokiSoft (and the rest of the industry) that I, for one, want to pay for high quality software.

You can't live on high praise. For all those people giving their work out the public, THANK YOU sincerely and truly. But for everyone else, realize that free software is a privilege, not a right.

--
If it's not important, you can probably find it in...

I think in a proprietary software world, all these IT pundits cheering Windows were probably right from a business sense. Microsoft was giving them just what they needed: a "good enough" solution that a predictable amount of dollars and that drone employees could handle, far better than a "quality" solution by a techie who might ask for a raise!

BUT, Microsoft pushed the aesthetic limits of the techies way too far. The Open Source Code Development Model and related business models based on it are a direct result, I believe, of people's frustrations with Microsoft's inferior products, destruction of standards, "unfair" destruction of competition, etc. The best evidence is Judge Jackson's findings of fact. Open Source is for many of us, including the VCs, SGI, etc., is a revolt against the monopoly.

IT analysts have to be business-minded, offering formularic "solutions" based on case histories. They could not have seen the Open Source revolt coming. The business case history wasn't there. Once open source models become an accepted business formula, the IT analysts will be out there peddling them as well.

If all these info-brokers, and sites like Slashdot etc. continue in their way, I think the IT analysts might find themselves hard pressed for a job in the future as opinion, successful practice, etc., starts to permiate from the web itself. Karma!

I can't believe the amount of negative posts about Netscape in this topic. The story itself was already crap but it looks like all the backstabbers are busy this weekend. I can't but wonder if some ACs are here to try to boost opinions that Netscape lost because of an inferior product.

Now let's have a reality check. Netscape is not about Communicator anymore. It's been about Mozilla already for more than a year. Sure they have released new versions of Communicator, but all the hard development and hopes are on Mozilla. And believe me, Mozilla is looking better and better every day. Just grab a nightly build from ftp.mozilla.org and see with your own eyes.

Mozilla has been built from ground up. It's well designed and has some really ground breaking code. It's already faster than IE and there's still a lot to optimize. The nightly build for win32 is just 5,2 MB. Compare that to the 18,1 MB bloat of Communicator and tens of megs of MSIE. Those who have programmed know that the bigger the executable, the more it contains ugly spaghetti code. Mozilla is also perfect for cell phones and hand held devices as it's small, componentized and runs on a free OS. That gives Mozilla a difinite edge compared to MSIE.

We've been patiently waiting for Mozilla for a year already. Now that Mozilla is getting close to ready, we get to read all these horror stories about Netscape being dead. It's just FUD and if you read the Findings of Fact-document, you don't have to be a genious to figure out who's feeding these news. But it doesn't matter what ZDNet, Gartner or Microsoft say. Mozilla will ship within 2-3 months and it will be a great product.

I wouldn't assume that this case takes the fast appeal track. IANAL, but my reading of the Expediting Act is that three things are necessary for the expedited appeal to take place:

1. One party (presumably the DoJ) asks for it,
2. The district judge issues an order stating that the case is of general public importance to the administration of justice,
3. The Supreme Court accepts the appeal.

Points 1 and 2 would seem to be a slam-dunk. The DoJ desperately wants this resolved quickly, and Judge Jackson is in no mood to have his decision come before the Circuit Court of Appeals again, if that can be avoided. (Besides, this case is genuinely one of "public importance".)

The wild card here is point 3: acceptance by the Supreme Court. They could hear the case, but they could just as easily choose to refer it to the Circuit Court, and then perhaps hear an appeal from that decision.

On the one hand, this seems to be the type of case for which the Expediting Act was designed: a case of national importance, where delay would have widespread repercussions. On the other hand, the Court has such a crush of cases, it must defer or decline action on all but the most vital ones.

So, the Expediting Act really only offers a potental for fast resolution, which may or may not be realized.

Nick

What was the one thing he emphasized over and over again that MS does to uphold the Applications Barrier to Entry in favor of Windows?

That's right, winning the browser wars. If MS can kill Netscape (and Java, including Netscape's Java engine), MS will have a stranglehold on the PC market.

The OSS community needs to embrace Netscape/Mozilla or come up with an OSS alternative real quick if it values its computing freedom.

(Personally I even think Netscape is better than IE when it comes to stability. IE on Windows will crash and freeze (and in the case of Windows 9x take the OS with it) seemingly at random. My experience is that IE crashes frequently, leaving the OS in an unusable or unstable state. At least with Netscape it's pretty predictable, over time you learn what makes it crash so you can avoid it. If you run Netscape on a proper OS like Linux it can't take the OS with it so all in all you have a much more stable and predictable web viewing experience.)

Use Opera, use Lynx, use Netscape, use whatever except IE if you value your freedom!

Let webmasters know that if they require IE to view their site you will be taking your business elsewhere!

-- Gunnar

When I saw the news last night, I agreed with you. As someone has already said, the judge *gets it*, Microsoft is a monopoly. (By the way, if you haven't read the decision yet, go read it, as it makes clear how much the judge understands Microsoft, which is a *lot*). But after a good nights sleep and a chance to read the morning print media stories, it hit home that Microsoft is not going to get penalized for as long as2 or 3 years. If the judge finds legally that Microsoft violated antitrust law, as now seems likely, he will ask the DOJ to recommend penalties, Microsoft gets to respond, etc.etc and we haven't even already touched on the inevitable appeals. Don't get me wrong, this is great news, but it just one battle, not the war. (But I did relish reading the decision in WordPerfect:-)

Note the the GPO site has not only PDF and WP but also HTML versions of the Findings up.

It May be a bit easier for some to read....

-JimC

Note the the GPO site has not only PDF and WP but also HTML versions of the Findings up.

It May be a bit easier for some to read....

-JimC

Note the the GPO site has not only PDF and WP but also HTML versions of the Findings up.

It May be a bit easier for some to read....

-JimC

Note the the GPO site has not only PDF and WP but also HTML versions of the Findings up.

It May be a bit easier for some to read....

-JimC

Well, the web page has been changed now and you can either download the text or browse it. But it's slashdotted already, probably also because of links from other news articles, I guess. I've managed to get 2% of the 397K HTML file before it stalled (http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html).

A mirror certainly would be nice.

now says judgement will be post today 5 Nov 19:30 est

No longer a rumor. U.S. vs. Microsoft special web site now says this:

When released by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the document entitled Findings of Fact will be available for download from this page. This release will occur at 6:30 pm (eastern time) today, November 5th.

I'm all a-tingle.

According to CNBC & CNN, the Finding of Fact in the DOJ vs MS trial will be released today at 6:30pm (EST). The statement will be avaliable at http://usvms.gpo.gov/

There's a difference between Laws and Regulations, and CFR means Code of Federal Regulations. (14 CFR, for example, contains all the Federal Aviation Regulations: Parts 1 - 199.) Regulations are a civil, not a criminal, matter.

You cannot be imprisoned for violating a regulation, but other sanctions and fines can be applied. But you don't necessarily have the usual constitutional protections of due process etc. in a regulatory process.

The CFR's tend to be very technical, and the average congress person has no hope of understanding them. Try browsing Title 14. For example, 91.175 - Takeoff and Landing Under IFR.

I just checked out the Code of Federal regulations and that subsection they specify as containing this law doesn't exist. Take a look here for Title 14. It lists all the regs governing NASA.

*sigh* repost because /. lost my original post.

A text file of HR 3028 can be found at ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp106/hr4 12.txt

That's because the Government Printing Office is already known by most as the GPO. It's at http://www.access.gpo.gov/, if you're interested.

I'm going to compare the defense budget at its peak in 1987 and in 1998. Since the tables use 1992 as a base year for inflation & deflation correction factors, I'll include the data for that year too. Lets start with real dollar defense expenditures:

National defense expenditures in real dollars
1987: 281,999 thousand
1992: 298,350 thousand
1998: 268,456 thousand

Of course, these figures are meaningless until correcting for inflation. Using the inflation & deflation correction factors from the same document (using 1992 as the base year), the corrected numbers are:

National defense expenditures in 1992 dollars
1987: 340,044 thousand (or 384,828 in 1998 dollars)
1992: 298,350 thousand
1998: 237,215 thousand

From 1987 to 1992, the defense budget declined 12% in constant year dollars. From 1987 to 1998, the defense budget declined 30% in constant year dollars. During that period, the "peace dividend" has steadily grown to over 145 billion per year wrt the peak. Now let us compare the defense budget levels as a percentage of the total federal budget:

Defense expenditures as % of federal budget
1987: 28.1%
1992: 21.6%
1998: 16.2%

Therefore, as a percentage of the total federal budget, defense spending declined 23% from 1987 to 1992 and 42% from 1987 to 1998. Finally, compare the defense spending levels as a percentage of GDP:

Defense expenditures as a percentage of US GDP
1987: 6.1%
1992: 4.9%
1998: 3.2%

In this case, defense expenditures as a percentage of US GDP declined 21% from 1987 to 1992 and 48% from 1987 to 1998.

I offer this as irrefutable proof that the "peace dividend" is real.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html

-E

I guess you're referring to the "crypto-specific API" case, where your application invokes encryption functions through some sort of "crypto-specific" interface, and thus may be considered export-controlled even though it contains no crypto code. The restrictions on this are really enforced on a case by case basis, as the regulations don't really cover every question about what is a crypto-specific interface and what is not. However for my best guesses on the matter see question 5 of the Mozilla Crypto FAQ. I include references to the relevant sections of the Export Administration Regulations, but unfortunately the links in the FAQ are no longer working; check the GPO's online version of the EAR.

I know, we could start an anti-Microsoft (liberal) party! To what extent we allow Microsoft to influence the technology would be a key issue in a cyber government.

But seriously, I don't think they have given much thought to the idea of how government works. Is this serious or is it a government in the same way that Discordianism is a "religion"? How does it go again? : ...among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Declaration of Independence
This thing won't do that. Nor will it: form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

For all the regulations in effect check here. I don't think part 1331 has gone into effect yet (Oct 1999 I believe) so thats why its not listed.

On tuesday, an amendment banning distribution of information on making explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction was added to the sure-to-pass Juvenile Crime Bill.

Amendment SP353 to S.254

Sec 402 Criminal Prohibition on Distribution of Certain Information Relating to Explosives, Destructive Devices, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

(2) Prohibition - It shall be unlawful for any person - (A) to teach or demonstrate the making of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that that teaching, demonstration, or information be used for or in furtherance of an activity that consitutes a Federal crime of violence;

[The Senate doesn't have the guts to have this amendment on their site yet, go to the GPO Congressional Record and search on 1999 CR for S5385, then look in that result for Section 402 for the down and dirty]

Index to Iranian transactions regulations, 31 CFR pt. 560.

Restriction on reexport to Iran, 31 CFR 560.205, which reads in part:

[T]he reexportation to Iran or the Government of Iran of any goods or technology exported from the United States, the exportation of which to Iran was subject to export license application requirements under any United States regulations in effect immediately prior to May 6, 1995, is prohibited, unless the reexportation is of goods that have been . . . incorporated into another product outside the United States and constitute less than 10 percent by value of that product exported from a third country.

Exemption for "information," 31 CFR 560.210(c), which reads in part:

(1) The prohibitions of Secs. 560.204 [pertaining to direct export from USA] and 560.206 [pertaining to import from Iran] do not apply to the exportation from the United States to Iran of information and informational materials, as defined in Sec. 560.315, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission . . . .
_
(3) Paragraph (c)(1) does not authorize transactions incident to the exportation of restricted technical data as defined in part 779 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR part 779, or to the exportation of goods for use in the transmission of any data. The exportation of such goods to Iran is prohibited, as provided in 560.204.

Definition of information, 31 CFR 560.315, which reads in part:

(a) The term information or informational materials includes, without limitation:
_
(1) Publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds.
_
(b) The term information and informational materials with respect to United States exports does not include items:
_
(1) That were, as of April 30, 1994, controlled for export pursuant to section 5 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. App. 2401-2420 (the "EAA"), or section 6 of the EAA to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, including "software" that is not "publicly available" as these terms are defined in 15 CFR parts 779 and 799.1 . . . .

Index to Iranian transactions regulations, 31 CFR pt. 560.

Restriction on reexport to Iran, 31 CFR 560.205, which reads in part:

[T]he reexportation to Iran or the Government of Iran of any goods or technology exported from the United States, the exportation of which to Iran was subject to export license application requirements under any United States regulations in effect immediately prior to May 6, 1995, is prohibited, unless the reexportation is of goods that have been . . . incorporated into another product outside the United States and constitute less than 10 percent by value of that product exported from a third country.

Exemption for "information," 31 CFR 560.210(c), which reads in part:

(1) The prohibitions of Secs. 560.204 [pertaining to direct export from USA] and 560.206 [pertaining to import from Iran] do not apply to the exportation from the United States to Iran of information and informational materials, as defined in Sec. 560.315, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission . . . .
_
(3) Paragraph (c)(1) does not authorize transactions incident to the exportation of restricted technical data as defined in part 779 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR part 779, or to the exportation of goods for use in the transmission of any data. The exportation of such goods to Iran is prohibited, as provided in 560.204.

Definition of information, 31 CFR 560.315, which reads in part:

(a) The term information or informational materials includes, without limitation:
_
(1) Publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds.
_
(b) The term information and informational materials with respect to United States exports does not include items:
_
(1) That were, as of April 30, 1994, controlled for export pursuant to section 5 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. App. 2401-2420 (the "EAA"), or section 6 of the EAA to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, including "software" that is not "publicly available" as these terms are defined in 15 CFR parts 779 and 799.1 . . . .

Index to Iranian transactions regulations, 31 CFR pt. 560.

Restriction on reexport to Iran, 31 CFR 560.205, which reads in part:

[T]he reexportation to Iran or the Government of Iran of any goods or technology exported from the United States, the exportation of which to Iran was subject to export license application requirements under any United States regulations in effect immediately prior to May 6, 1995, is prohibited, unless the reexportation is of goods that have been . . . incorporated into another product outside the United States and constitute less than 10 percent by value of that product exported from a third country.

Exemption for "information," 31 CFR 560.210(c), which reads in part:

(1) The prohibitions of Secs. 560.204 [pertaining to direct export from USA] and 560.206 [pertaining to import from Iran] do not apply to the exportation from the United States to Iran of information and informational materials, as defined in Sec. 560.315, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission . . . .
_
(3) Paragraph (c)(1) does not authorize transactions incident to the exportation of restricted technical data as defined in part 779 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR part 779, or to the exportation of goods for use in the transmission of any data. The exportation of such goods to Iran is prohibited, as provided in 560.204.

Definition of information, 31 CFR 560.315, which reads in part:

(a) The term information or informational materials includes, without limitation:
_
(1) Publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds.
_
(b) The term information and informational materials with respect to United States exports does not include items:
_
(1) That were, as of April 30, 1994, controlled for export pursuant to section 5 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. App. 2401-2420 (the "EAA"), or section 6 of the EAA to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, including "software" that is not "publicly available" as these terms are defined in 15 CFR parts 779 and 799.1 . . . .

Index to Iranian transactions regulations, 31 CFR pt. 560.

Restriction on reexport to Iran, 31 CFR 560.205, which reads in part:

[T]he reexportation to Iran or the Government of Iran of any goods or technology exported from the United States, the exportation of which to Iran was subject to export license application requirements under any United States regulations in effect immediately prior to May 6, 1995, is prohibited, unless the reexportation is of goods that have been . . . incorporated into another product outside the United States and constitute less than 10 percent by value of that product exported from a third country.

Exemption for "information," 31 CFR 560.210(c), which reads in part:

(1) The prohibitions of Secs. 560.204 [pertaining to direct export from USA] and 560.206 [pertaining to import from Iran] do not apply to the exportation from the United States to Iran of information and informational materials, as defined in Sec. 560.315, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission . . . .
_
(3) Paragraph (c)(1) does not authorize transactions incident to the exportation of restricted technical data as defined in part 779 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR part 779, or to the exportation of goods for use in the transmission of any data. The exportation of such goods to Iran is prohibited, as provided in 560.204.

Definition of information, 31 CFR 560.315, which reads in part:

(a) The term information or informational materials includes, without limitation:
_
(1) Publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds.
_
(b) The term information and informational materials with respect to United States exports does not include items:
_
(1) That were, as of April 30, 1994, controlled for export pursuant to section 5 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. App. 2401-2420 (the "EAA"), or section 6 of the EAA to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, including "software" that is not "publicly available" as these terms are defined in 15 CFR parts 779 and 799.1 . . . .