Slashdot Mirror


Can the US Stop the Illegal Export of Its Technology?

coondoggie writes "Maybe people are more desperate or maybe there's just too much opportunity to make a quick buck but whatever the excuse, attempts to illegally export technology from the US has gone through the roof. The Department of Justice this week said it has placed criminal charges or convictions against more than 255 defendants in the past two fiscal years — 145 in 2008 and 110 in 2007. That 255 number represents more than a six-fold increase from fiscal year 2005, when the DOJ said about 40 individuals or companies were convicted of over 100 criminal violations of export control laws."

351 comments

  1. We don't export the technology. by SupremoMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    We just outsource the means of producing it en masse. Semantics count people!

    1. Re:We don't export the technology. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      No. We must simply cut the series of tubes commonly referred to as "the internets" wherever they cross the US border.

      Of course, we should only cut the outbound tubes, as we still could use any innovation's that are developed in other countries.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:We don't export the technology. by sipatha · · Score: 1

      What if its accessed via satellite?

    3. Re:We don't export the technology. by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      Leave them for pr0n only.

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    4. Re:We don't export the technology. by TenDollarMan · · Score: 1

      Semantics don't count people! People count people.

  2. First post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On my new illegal import from the United States.

    1. Re:First post by Warll · · Score: 1

      You exported a computer?

      "Firearms to Canada â" On June 19, 2008, Ugur Yildiz was arrested and charged in a criminal complaint in the Northern District of Illinois with illegally exporting some 220 firearms from Chicago to Canada in 2006. The investigation was conducted by ICE and the ATF."

      Reminds me of this story: http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/warship.shtml

  3. 11111111 by Chillintau · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good thing there wasn't another attempt, otherwise the counter would've overflowed.

    1. Re:11111111 by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      They'd better get cracking on the paperwork for another bit for the next biennial period.

    2. Re:11111111 by PaleCommander · · Score: 1

      Rather than add an extra bit, they should just switch to 2's complement. Who doesn't want the number of defendants to drop to -1?

    3. Re:11111111 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just the DOJ taking a byte out of crime

    4. Re:11111111 by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      NaN NaN NaN NaN
      NaN NaN NaN NaN
      NaN-NaN-NaN
      Goodbye!

    5. Re:11111111 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it did, and there were really 511 defendants. :)

    6. Re:11111111 by umghhh · · Score: 1

      maybe they have y2000 problem sort of problem? Stored values in a byte and being good designers made a protection so there is no overflow. I keep seeing such designs (and other nonsense) all the time. That is good as it justifies expense of keeping an QA monkey like me.

    7. Re:11111111 by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      Eww - BaNaNarama?

      Nearly as bad as a Rickrolling :o)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  4. Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Information wants to be free, my friend, no matter what you and your fascist DoJAA think.

    1. Re:Excuse? by philspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, and cows don't WANT to be eaten, but they taste good with barbecue sauce...

      Similarly, information might "want" to be free, but giving other countries our technology is a stupid move, so it's not going to.

      And what the fuck does "Information wants to be free" even mean or justify anyway?

    2. Re:Excuse? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just ignore him, he's a hippie.

    3. Re:Excuse? by philspear · · Score: 0

      I guess he did just send me an e-mail that said "Dude, chill out! Hey, got any pot or secret weapons technology?"

    4. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free

      It's a really interesting observation that some people turn into ideology.

    5. Re:Excuse? by e9th · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't confuse information with technology. Most of the prosecutions were for exporting goods, not IP.

    6. Re:Excuse? by philspear · · Score: 1

      That appeared to be talking about the physical costs to getting information out. As in it costs next to nothing to physically post. It does not appear to me to justify at all the sharing of state secrets that can be used against the US. It doesn't mean that there is no way or no reason to keep any information secret or private. ...Of course, the fact that I got modded flamebait tells me something about the mindset of people who subscribe to that ideology.

    7. Re:Excuse? by gclef · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and yet, information hates to be anthromorphized. It's funny that way.

    8. Re:Excuse? by boto · · Score: 1

      I think we can generalize it as "people want to be free" (to propagate information, and to do business with whoever they want), then.

    9. Re:Excuse? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Have you noticed how the original "The DOJ is fascist! Information wants to be free!" hippie got modded "insightful" but everyone else in this thread got modded "troll"?

      The "information wants to be free" crowd includes RMS, though he didn't originate the phrase (he has been said to). One of Stallman's philosophies included the philosophy that information is inherently a resource we all have a right to; that security systems to guard the knowledge of how to do anything is in essence offensive, and should not exist. He basically condemns every attempt to protect trade secrets and any sort of technology whatsoever; I don't think he's silly enough to believe personal information should be published, but who is?

      This is, essentially, being a hippie. The Big Guverment and Big Corporations want to keep us oppressed with their Big Secrets, but we can do whatever the hell they want and subvert their secrets at every turn! Information wants to be free!

    10. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it's your personal information, in which case it doesn't want to be free. Go figure.

      Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

    11. Re:Excuse? by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Aah, well then. I expect you'll be manning up within minutes to post your name, address, SSN, and full banking details then.

      We'll be waiting.

    12. Re:Excuse? by philspear · · Score: 1

      ...security systems to guard the knowledge of how to do anything is in essence offensive, and should not exist.

      Did he say anything about what to do when less enlightened dictators use our now open-to-everyone missile technology against us?

    13. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Some people want to enter the heroin business. Is it acceptable to place limitations on them?

    14. Re:Excuse? by waferbuster · · Score: 1

      You got it backwards, it should be "we can do whatever the hell we want and subvert their secrets at every turn!"
      Although, your version makes sense in a Brazil sort of way.

      Quoted: "This is, essentially, being a hippie. The Big Guverment and Big Corporations want to keep us oppressed with their Big Secrets, but we can do whatever the hell they want and subvert their secrets at every turn! Information wants to be free!"

      --
      I'm an individual! Just like everyone else!
    15. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't confuse information with technology.

      Let's see. Information, that's data. Software, i.e. code, is Technology. As we all know, code is data and data is code.

      Do academic articles about crypto violate the export laws? Does the python interpreter? If you supply the numbers, it pretty much has RSA built in (look at the three-argument `pow').

      How about a package deal, with both an article and an interpreter?

    16. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does it tell you? That you're a fucking moron?

    17. Re:Excuse? by init100 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That appeared to be talking about the physical costs to getting information out.

      I see the Information wants to be free as an observation that information spreads easily, and that once something is out, you can't lock it up again, just like you can't put a genie back into a bottle.

      A good example of this is the Streisand Effect, in which some entity tries to force the removal of some piece of information from the internet, but since the attempt makes people perceive the information as valuable, large numbers make sure that they get a copy themselves. Poster cases for this effect is the attempt by certain movie companies to remove a HD-DVD encryption key from the internet. The attempt seriously backfired, making the encryption key one of the most well-known large numbers on the internet.

    18. Re:Excuse? by deraj123 · · Score: 1

      If they want to sell me heroin and I want to buy it, why not? As long as the "heroin business" consists of consensual agreements between two people, I don't see the problem.

    19. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Externalities.

    20. Re:Excuse? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes I am scatterbrained.

    21. Re:Excuse? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      The problem is the heroin business doesn't have any senators in its pocket. Yet.

    22. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the sentiment of this post. 'Information wants to be free' has lost all meaning as it is misused constantly.

    23. Re:Excuse? by Seven_Six_Two · · Score: 2

      So is incessant war mongering a trait you look for when you enter the voting booth? How is developing weapons and using them on others an indicator of enlightenment? If all information was free and open, then maybe some countries would spend more time brokering peace and improving the world instead of making sure that they are able to crush their enemies first. I don't understand blind nationalism. I love where I live, but if the politicians here get much worse, I'm either leaving the country or revolting. We're all the same after all, despite our great number of differences.

    24. Re:Excuse? by philspear · · Score: 1

      I see the Information wants to be free as an observation that information spreads easily, and that once something is out, you can't lock it up again, just like you can't put a genie back into a bottle.

      The specific quote on the wiki page was talking about costs, that's what I was referring to.

      As far as the genie in a bottle goes, that's generally true but doesn't explain why we should stop trying to keep our weapons technology from ending up in Iran.

      Information wants to be free? Great. Iran wants to nuke us. We need to stop both.

    25. Re:Excuse? by philspear · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If all information was free and open, then maybe some countries would spend more time brokering peace and improving the world instead of making sure that they are able to crush their enemies first.

      Good lord, what species are you talking about? If Iran had a nuke, they'd destroy Israel or give it to Al Quaeda who would blow up New York. Mutually assured destruction only worked in the cold war because the stakes were so insanely high and both parties were semi-rational. You can't say the same about north korea or Iran, or suicide bombers. I'm a pretty extreme liberal, but there is absolutely no way giving everyone the know how to build weapons is going to end well.

      I don't understand blind nationalism.

      Well, obviously, as you're not seeing it right now. That was realism.

      I love where I live, but if the politicians here get much worse, I'm either leaving the country or revolting.

      Well, then it's a very VERY good thing you don't know how to build a missile.

    26. Re:Excuse? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I expect you'll be manning up within minutes to post your name, address, SSN, and full banking details then.

      He didn't say, "I want information to be free." He said, "Information wants to be free."

      It's exactly because information "wants" to be free that posting personal information here is a bad idea. It wouldn't stay here. It would spread.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    27. Re:Excuse? by Tsagadai · · Score: 1

      The problem is the heroin business doesn't have any senators in its pocket. Yet.

      You mean anymore, right? The United States used to export heroin once upon a time.

    28. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Information wants to be free? Great. Iran wants to nuke us. We need to stop both.

      Do you mean "Iran wants to nuke us" as in "Saddam Hussein wants to nuke us, and has missiles ready to fire at London at 45 minutes notice"? There were plenty of warmongers astroturfing the internet with claims that the nuking from Iraq was imminent. That turned out to be a bunch of bullshit.

      Now we see more warmongers spreading the message that Iran must be trying to attack us, so of course we must attack Iran.

      You seem to be saying that you want US to attack Iran. How do you know that the information about Iran trying to nuke US isn't just as much bullshit as the nonsense about Saddam Hussein? Why should the average person believe the warmongers again? Last time people believed the warmongers, look what happened. Iraq still isn't a peaceful democracy. The USA's image has been tarnished by various things.

      So you want to fight Iran? Will you be joining up to do the job yourself, or do you want other people to do it for you?

    29. Re:Excuse? by umghhh · · Score: 1

      the arguments about nukes is not really correct. Nothing happened back in cold war era because we were lucky and there were only two systems that could go on destroying all there was and they were under tight control of semi civilized and organized forces. Now if you imagine every lunatic around having an access to a dirty bomb if not a real one then that is dangerous. Most likely it will happen eventually.
      Whether restrictions help in preventing this scenarios I doubt. The question is rather: do countries using such policies have enough stamina to compete with the rest and stay on top or not. If they do then they survive anyway if not then no amount of control will prevent demise. Practically there is an issue of control and how much of it is enough. Openness is good. But complete transparency (provided it is at all possible) may not be so good for anybody.

    30. Re:Excuse? by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hmm.... I dunno.
      If I was currently selling illegal drugs in the US and wanted to continue to rake in giant piles of money I'd be making political donations to whoever was pushing the "tough on drugs" laws with a little note along the lines of "keep up the good work mate".
      Why? Well if it was legalised I'd be ruined!

      Who was hurt most by the ending of prohibition? The mob of course, they wanted it to never end.
      Legal distributors selling safer cheaper drugs would push them out of the market entirely.

      The best thing that can happen for them is for a competitor to be busted, they can just expand into their former market overnight. Sure they might be busted themselves but the organisations which survive and grow will be the ones which are best at avoiding getting caught.

      I've heard that during prohibition foreign alcohol producers quietly lobbied to keep prohibition since consumption didn't go down, the American producers were pushed out of business and import taxes went the way of the morning mist.

      Few people seem to be able to graps this, drug laws just create a situation where there's a group of people distributing drugs with a large financial incentive to expand their market.

      Want to get rid of the drug dealers? It only takes a few easy and cheap steps.
      Step 1: Provide free high quality drugs to people already addicted with no criminal penalties or consequences to people who come forward and ask for them.
      Step 2: You're basicly done, you've knocked the bottom out of the drug buisness, you are now the distributor and you have no reason to try to get more people addicted. Drug dealers can no longer make any profit out of getting kids addicted since they just go to you when it starts costing money.

      Much much much much cheaper than the massive failure that the war on drugs is.

    31. Re:Excuse? by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thing is the know how isn't the big deal. Any decent group of physics PHDs and professors could build a bomb with the right materials. The only thing really stopping every tom dick and harry from building one is the uranium enrichment. That takes serious money and time to get working.

    32. Re:Excuse? by master_p · · Score: 1

      But drug use will not be diminished even if it is the government that sells the drugs. Look at Holland: drug use went up, from the moment the 'light' drugs were allowed in coffee shops.

      Your plan simply changes the owner of the drug business. But, in essence, the goal is not achieved. People will continue to use drugs, no matter what.

    33. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, like the fact that you are an asshole. The info is out!

    34. Re:Excuse? by Blue+Warlord · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ahum that had much more todo with the historical context in which these numbers come from. You know the seventies with the hippies. It is a well established fact that drugs usage in the Netherlands is considerable lower than the European average or the USA for that matter. See http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm for some hard numbers.

    35. Re:Excuse? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      2 situations:

      1: You legalise it and let normal businesses supply drugs.
      Result:
      -higher quality drugs so no more drugs cut with ground glass etc.
      -the criminal aspect drops away since there's so little profit in it unless you set really really high taxes on it.
      -There's still a group with a reason to try to get new people hooked on drugs.

      2: You don't legalise selling drugs but the government supplies free drugs like I said.
      Result:
      -nobody can sell drugs profitably.
      -the criminal aspect drops away unless you're retarded and stigmatise people who come forward for the drugs.
      -The government certainly isn't going to try to get more customers since the more addicts they supply the more it costs, they have no reason to get jimmy idiot addicted.

      1 is better for personal freedom and all that.
      2 is better if you want to have the minimum number of people addicted to drugs.

      Drug dealers would shit themselves at the idea of either situation coming to pass.

    36. Re:Excuse? by TheP4st · · Score: 3, Funny

      but giving other countries our technology is a stupid move,

      Technology like the Playstation with a label underneath saying that it was illegal to export it from the US, which I bought in Hong Kong back in the 90's and brought to the terrorist nation Sweden?

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    37. Re:Excuse? by boto · · Score: 1

      2: You don't legalise selling drugs but the government supplies free drugs like I said.

      The government would need to be sure they are always updated with the latest new drugs. Otherwise the dealers will start selling the "new and improved" drugs and will have incentives to make people addicted to their drugs, instead of the government drugs. Yes, it would be difficult to compete with free products (even if the free products are "inferior), but I think there will be demand for non-free products anyway.

      BTW, I would be really pissed if government starts using the money they stole from me to pay for other people's addictions.

    38. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The absurd crime level that exists only because drugs are illegal is also an externality.

      If I have to choose between the externality of seeing other people getting addicted because they want to (it's their decision), or the externality of having regions of the city where organized crime is the law, I choose the first.

    39. Re:Excuse? by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Huh? Whoever said the goal was to get people to stop using drugs? The goal is to end the violence, save the huge taxpayer cost, and stop the other dangers (such as cutting coke with rat poison), not to get people to stop.

    40. Re:Excuse? by dgriff · · Score: 1

      Want to get rid of the drug dealers? It only takes a few easy and cheap steps. Step 1: Provide free high quality drugs to people already addicted with no criminal penalties or consequences to people who come forward and ask for them. Step 2: You're basicly done, you've knocked the bottom out of the drug buisness, you are now the distributor and you have no reason to try to get more people addicted. Drug dealers can no longer make any profit out of getting kids addicted since they just go to you when it starts costing money.

      Nice argument, but how do you know that the person coming to you for their free supply is already an addict? Remember the reason a lot of people become addicts in the first place is that they are living miserable lives and heroin (or whatever) gives them a temporary escape. If they see their mates blissed out on government smack, what's to stop them also going along and pretending to be an addict?

      At least having a cost attached limits their ability to afford it.

    41. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you know, sometimes i wonder, just how close we would be to those sci-fi movies, if we would put all our technology together, regardless of patents and military secrets ... i think we would have colonized Mars by now ...

    42. Re:Excuse? by philspear · · Score: 1

      Now we see more warmongers spreading the message that Iran must be trying to attack us, so of course we must attack Iran.

      You idiot, I never said we should attack Iran. That doesn't mean we should be giving them our weapons. It's precisely BECAUSE they don't have our weapons systems that we have no reason to attack them: they pose little threat.

      Now if you "Information should all be shared" types had your way, that would be different.

      And not for nothing, if "information wants to be free" applies to everything, why the hell are you all posting AC?

    43. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apart from the fact that weed was still cheaper in the UK than Amsterdam when I last visited. Quality was no different either.

      Illegal cigarettes (duty free, fake, stolen) are half the price of legit cigarettes in the UK.

      Nice try.

    44. Re:Excuse? by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      I see the Information wants to be free as an observation that information spreads easily, and that once something is out, you can't lock it up again, just like you can't put a genie back into a bottle.

      Information is inanimate; its has no wants or desires. People want information to be free.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    45. Re:Excuse? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Your plan simply changes the owner of the drug business. But, in essence, the goal is not achieved. People will continue to use drugs, no matter what.

      Where do you get the idea that the goal is getting nobody doing drugs? The goal is to reduce the crime associated with drugs. Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of the problems generally associated with drugs are caused by drug laws rather than drugs themselves it does solve the problem.

      If you really think it's the government's business to try and stop everyone from doing what they want to with no harm to you merely becasue you disapprove, then perhaps you should move somewhere like China where that sort of attitude is normal rather than remaining in a free country when you obviously don't like freedom.

    46. Re:Excuse? by init100 · · Score: 1

      I know that, please read my post again. I see the "Information wants to be free" expression as a way of saying that information is hard or even impossible to lock up once it is out in the open. It does not mean that information literally has any desires.

    47. Re:Excuse? by joaobranco · · Score: 1

      Nice argument, but how do you know that the person coming to you for their free supply is already an addict? Remember the reason a lot of people become addicts in the first place is that they are living miserable lives and heroin (or whatever) gives them a temporary escape. If they see their mates blissed out on government smack, what's to stop them also going along and pretending to be an addict?

      At least having a cost attached limits their ability to afford it.

      Is that really so? I always heard "the first one is always free" applied to addictive behaviour. If you WANT or don't mind to get addicted, you can do it easily enough in any case.

    48. Re:Excuse? by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      Thing is the know how isn't the big deal. Any decent group of physics PHDs and professors could build a bomb with the right materials. The only thing really stopping every tom dick and harry from building one is the uranium enrichment. That takes serious money and time to get working.

      Fewer lunatics with nukes => fewer dead. You can work either on limiting nuke production or preventing lunatic playgrounds from emerging (or perhaps work on both?)

      The CIA has been working hard for a few years to create these playgrounds. Before anyone explodes (and I'm looking at you), I like the U.S. My country would probably have been invaded by the Soviet Union during the cold war had it not for the U.S. ability to whop ass globally.

      Now with that said, relax and read on.

      The CIA has done some really crazy stuff during the years. Installing dictators responsible for killing and torturing people. They helped Contras in Nicaragua (which involved drugdeals). As long as Irak and Saddam was against Iran they didn't care that he used mustardgas against his own people. They trained "a highly religious faction" in Afghanistan and gave them weapons.

      Does anybody see a pattern here? If you are ok to work alongside bastards because they are your enemies enemy, you should not be surprised if they turn out to be bastards once the old enemy is gone. After all, you knew this already.

      Again, I like the U.S. and I like your constitution, I just don't like everything that the CIA does. Their type of action hurts your country in the long run and breeds this crazy hatred of the U.S.A. around the globe. (Bring on the flames)

      --
      She made the willows dance
    49. Re:Excuse? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A, that is a flase statemtn about Holland and drugs.

      B, If adults want to do drugs, who are you to say no?

      Seriously, I don't do illegal drugs, but it's not like they are hard to get. There just dangerous to get becasue they are controlled by criminals.

      "People will continue to use drugs, no matter what"
      Exactly, so why not make it safe, regulated, taxed, and a known dosage?
      The only people that don't want drugs legal are the people that it makes money for: Police departments and criminals.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    50. Re:Excuse? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Remember the reason a lot of people become addicts in the first place is that they are living miserable lives and heroin (or whatever) gives them a temporary escape"
      um..no.

      "At least having a cost attached limits their ability to afford it."
      Yep, legalize it, regulated it and let the market determine a price.

      Turn it froma cost center to a profit center. Tax it to fund clinics. There was a time in the US where Heroine addicts had normal jobs, functional well most of the time and shot up on their own time.
      now they are driven out into the street, deprived of a way to make money, shunned and left as desperate people who have no recourse to survive other then stealing or street prostitution. The crime the is attached to drug use is becasue it is illegal and people have no real choice.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    51. Re:Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government would need to be sure they are always updated with the latest new drugs. Otherwise the dealers will start selling the "new and improved" drugs and will have incentives to make people addicted to their drugs, instead of the government drugs. Yes, it would be difficult to compete with free products (even if the free products are "inferior), but I think there will be demand for non-free products anyway.

      First the disclaimer - I'm not advocating drug abuse, just making some counter-points.

      Let's imagine how it might go if cocaine were free and easily available, while heroin had not yet been invented. Then someone invents heroin, but it isn't free:

      heroin dealer: "Hey, man, try this new drug I call heroin."
      user: "Sure." [dealer gives user the first hit for free]
      [...later...]
      user: "Hey, can I get some more of that new heroin stuff?"
      heroin dealer: "Sure, $10 for a baggie."
      user: "Fuck off!" [user leaves to go get free cocaine]

      And what about profit margin for $$ heroin vs. free cocaine? Maybe it beats a job slinging fries at McDonalds, but it won't be enough to build an organized crime "empire". And if you can't build a criminal empire selling it, who cares? What if, in addition to providing free drugs, all drug laws were rescinded? If the heroin dealer isn't doing anything illegal, where's the incentive for related crimes? If somebody prefers $10 heroin, but cannot afford it this week (presumably because he's assed-up his life with cheap/free drugs), then he'll just go get the free drugs - no need to burglarize my house to steal things to fence for drug money. Furthermore, forget heroin - what if someone decides to sell cocaine to compete with the free cocaine? Impossible, you say? Well, water is damn near free, yet people still buy bottles of "Trump" brand water. So, why not "Trump" cocaine for $1000 a gram? Here's a slogan: "Trump Cocaine - Your friends already know you're a douche, but you can show them you're the kind of douche with conspicuously disposable income and the discerning taste and class to buy Trump Cocaine, the best cocaine stupid money can buy."

      But let's imagine that users think $$ heroin is just so much better than free cocaine, that many are willing to pay huge amounts of money for it, and that the government doesn't like that kind of situation:

      agent: "Hey chief, there's this new drug called heroin that lots of users would rather pay huge money for instead of free cocaine."
      chief: [reaching into file cabinet] "How much does it cost?"
      agent: "$200 for a little baggie, about a half ounce."
      chief: [filling out small form retrieved from filing cabinet] "Hard to believe. What do you think, 5 ounces?"
      agent: "Sure."
      chief: [handing form to agent] "Take that down to accounting. Oh, and say 'Hi' to the boys in the chem lab for me."
      agent: "Will do." [agent goes off to buy 5 ounces of sample heroin for analysis]
      [...next month...]
      user: "Hey, you guys got heroin now?"
      civil servant: "Fresh from the labs, here you go." [hands user a baggie and a pamphlet on treatment services, knowing the pamphlet will probably be discarded unread] "Have a nice day."
      [...elsewhere...]
      heroin dealer: "This sucks." [while filling out McDonalds job application]

      I'd say that if the government were willing to supply a minimal variety of free drugs, there would be effectively no profit motive for new drugs, especially if it demonstrated the willingness to undercut anything new and unique with a free supply. Of course, that would kill Trump Cocaine, but Mr. Trump could still sell ridiculously overpriced water. It would be easier and more profitable to smuggle tax-free cigarettes than attempt to compete with free drugs.

      BTW, I would be really pissed if government starts using the money they stole from me to pay for other people's addictions.

      Would you be less pissed if it would cost far less of your

    52. Re:Excuse? by init100 · · Score: 1

      It's precisely BECAUSE they don't have our weapons systems that we have no reason to attack them: they pose little threat.

      But since you have your weapon systems, you are a big threat. Or at least you will be if Sarah Palin ever becomes president of the United States. Then I suggest the EU unite and launch a preemptive all-out attack on the United States.

      The US likes preemptive strikes against religious fundamentalists, so why can't we?

    53. Re:Excuse? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      BTW, I would be really pissed if government starts using the money they stole from me to pay for other people's addictions.

      It already is being used to deal with the problems. You pay for police who try to enforce the drug laws and your house gets broken into by someone looking for something to sell to fund his habit. My way is just cheaper.

    54. Re:Excuse? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Well the UK is a bigger market with lax drug laws, scale makes a difference to these things as well.
      The cigarettes just mean that the taxes have got so high that it's worth it for criminal gangs to move them.

    55. Re:Excuse? by boto · · Score: 1

      You pay for police who try to enforce the drug laws and your house gets broken into by someone looking for something to sell to fund his habit.

      I wouldn't need to pay for law enforcement if the thing wasn't illegal in the first place. And the burglary problem would be diminished because the cost of drugs would drop greatly. Most of the cost of drugs today is the cost of working around law enforcement.

      I don't disagree with your way completely (it is better than making drugs illegal, in my opinion). But I think it won't be needed anyore, once prohibition stops.

    56. Re:Excuse? by master_p · · Score: 1

      So, drugs are good? no problem with them?

    57. Re:Excuse? by master_p · · Score: 1

      Having to use drugs (or any other substance) to achieve satisfaction is a symptom of an ill society. A healthy society requires healthy citizens, in mind and in body. Using drugs is, in many cases, not really a choice of the person doing the drugs, but the result of peer pressure (i.e. "take drugs to look cool or fit in").

      You mistakenly think of promiscuity as freedom.

    58. Re:Excuse? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Unless you're physically forced it's still your choice, I don't give a fuck about someone who's too weak willed to resist peer pressure. promiscuity isn't freedom but the freedom to be promiscuous if you wish certainly is freedom.

    59. Re:Excuse? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      So what if they're not? you're not actively trying to get them to come to you, you're not pushing them on them in a crowded club while their too drunk to think straight. And as it stands they can get their first few doses completely free from their local dealer anyway.

    60. Re:Excuse? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Having to use drugs (or any other substance) to achieve satisfaction is a symptom of an ill society.

      Nobody said anything about having to do something. Wanting to do something for fun is perfectly healthy and normal. Excessive use can lead to problems, but let's not pretend that's anywhere near the majority of drug use.

      A healthy society requires healthy citizens, in mind and in body. Using drugs is, in many cases, not really a choice of the person doing the drugs, but the result of peer pressure (i.e. "take drugs to look cool or fit in").

      In most cases, however, it is the choice of the person. You just keep taking fringe cases and pretending that's the norm.

      You mistakenly think of promiscuity as freedom.

      Which is idiotic nonsense. I said nothing that could be interpreted that way.
      If somebody wants to be promiscuous, then good for them. They have the freedom to do so and I have no right or reason to stand in their way. Given certain precautions, it's a perfectly healthy, happy choice.

    61. Re:Excuse? by philspear · · Score: 1

      But since you have your weapon systems, you are a big threat. Or at least you will be if Sarah Palin ever becomes president of the United States. Then I suggest the EU unite and launch a preemptive all-out attack on the United States.

      The US likes preemptive strikes against religious fundamentalists, so why can't we?

      Two reasons: one, we already have the weapons systems. Bush may be a warmongerer, but at least he's smart enough not to start trouble with someone who could fight back, threatening a really bloody war. Don't take that as condoning what he did, it was terrible, just saying at the absolute least, things worldwide would have been worse if he had tried to invade, say, China. Attacking a superpower is, as you no doubt realize, stupid in all ways.

      Two: you're making the same mistake some of our dumber citizens often make: it's not the US that likes pre-emptive strikes, its a small group of people at the top, the neocons in that particular case, who are leading a lot of really dumb people to war. Most people in the country, and in fact even most religious fundamentalists, have no fault in the wars Bush started. So don't blame us for what our government does.

    62. Re:Excuse? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Drugs are a physical thing, with no will of their own. They're neither good or evil.

      But, no, I don't have a problem with people taking them. Making them illegal hasn't stopped anyone that wants to from getting them, and the cost is larger than just letting people take them freely to begin with. If you truely think drug use is a problem, rehab programs are far more effective than outlawing the drug.

    63. Re:Excuse? by init100 · · Score: 1

      it's not the US that likes pre-emptive strikes, its a small group of people at the top, the neocons in that particular case, who are leading a lot of really dumb people to war. Most people in the country, and in fact even most religious fundamentalists, have no fault in the wars Bush started. So don't blame us for what our government does.

      No? Someone elected Bush to become president, not only once, but twice. Of course, I'm aware of the fundamental flaws of the US electoral system (which e.g. in the right circumstances allows someone to become president with just 25.1% voter support), so all the blame cannot rest with the voters. But still, a significant number fo voters must vote for a candidate for him or her to become the president, and all of those who voted for Bush are to blame, especially those who voted for his second term. They saw what he did, and apparently they liked it.

  5. Embrace and extend...... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Why worry about losing it when through embrace and extend we don't?

    At least until someone yells antitrust.

  6. but... by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?
    I mean, I know many Americans like to believe the US invented absolutely everything and are ahead of everyone else technologically, but in fact they really didn't and aren't.

    1. Re:but... by Andr+T. · · Score: 4, Funny

      I had this idea before you posted it. You thief!

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    2. Re:but... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolutely not. The laws of physics apply only to Americans.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    3. Re:but... by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?

      Maybe not, but remember that our military budget is far larger than any other country's (even if you account for labor rates), meaning that we have the "most toys" because we spend the most on military stuff.
         

    4. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Physics? For a while at least we couldn't even "export" mathematics above a certain level due to the restrictions on export of encryption algorithms, not sure if any such restriction still exists or not. Though not ideal, couldn't almost any equation be used as an ecryption method?

      Many of the other restrictions were somewhat silly too, especially without clarification in the article. Carbon fiber technology? Best be careful if your firm wants to use a space age fiber to build a toy, car part, cell phone case, etc and subcontract the job outside the US. Telephone equipment? What kind? Could Asterisk or similar fall into the restricted areas? How about your cell phone on a European vacation? No doubt the government has reams of definitions but how definitively are they structured and are you going to need to hire a staff of lawyers to review them carefully before shipping anything over seas including some low priced item you sold on eBay?

    5. Re:but... by The+Empiricist · · Score: 1

      Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?

      It's not particularly arrogant or unrealistic to think that the US has developed a particular technology and that many other countries have not developed a competitive technology yet. Technological development takes time and resources. Every country, company, organization, and individual has limited time and resources. Many countries have technologies that are very old. If they can purchase more advanced products and reverse engineering them, then they can save significant research and development costs. If the U.S. can keep such products out of the hands of certain foreign nations, then those foreign nations have to go through similar research and development efforts to try to bridge the technological gap. Of course, the U.S. government and U.S. companies continue their own R&D efforts, which helps to expand the technological gap.

      Many of the technologies that are under export control are really nasty technologies. Truth is, it would be best if nobody had access to them. One possible benefit of export controls is that, by limiting the potential market for subject technologies, there is less incentive for companies to develop such technologies.

      Of course, what the government considers potentially nasty sometimes conflicts with the needs of the public (e.g., strong cryptography). Care should be taken to address such conflicts, but they don't negate the potential value of export control to strengthening national security.

    6. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, we don't think that way over here in the US. After all, we know we didn't invent mud huts, crazy diseases, dictatorships, communism, aqueducts, guns, kings, rockets, torture, or many other things.

    7. Re:but... by Fluffeh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Maybe not, but remember that our military budget is far larger than any other country's (even if you account for labor rates), meaning that we have the "most toys" because we spend the most on military stuff.

      If I was sarcastic I would reply with "And look at all the good it has done you". Luckily I am not sarcastic. No wait...

      I would really really love to know how the world would be today if the US (and hopefully all the others) put all their defense/war budgets into humanitarian/environmental projects instead. I wonder if it really would be a utopia or if it would have fallen into chaos without the threat of such vast arms.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    8. Re:but... by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      more importantly, isn't this what free market capitalism is all about? being able to buy/sell whatever you want, turning a profit any way possible? it's a bit hypocritical to espouse free market policies when they benefit us but then denounce such actions when they are perceived as against our own interests.

      frankly, i'd be all for the complete cessation of U.S. arms exports of any kind. we've caused enough harm by giving weapons to oppressive regimes like the Indonesians during the genocide in East Timor, or our continued support of Israel's occupation of the West Bank. but this is like going after some small time heroin dealers while continuing to let Big Pharma market their synthetic (and more potent) opiates that are just as dangerous, and that kill more people in many areas than illegal drugs do.

      furthermore, it makes no sense to ban the export of encryption algorithms or non-weapon-related nuclear technology. scientific/technological progress doesn't occur in a vacuum. no matter which country a scientific discovery is made in, it is made on top of a foundation built by other scientists and thinkers that came before. the free exchange of information between individuals and cultures is what has propelled humanity from our primitive origins to the advanced societies that we have become. to deny others what we have benefited so greatly from is not only hypocritical and small, but it's incredibly selfish.

      but regardless of what kind of policies we decide to adopt on the regulation of trade, at the very least we need to be self-consistent. we can't advocate free trade and a laissez-faire economy in one sphere, but then contradict ourselves in another. so if the neocons that make our foreign policy want to regulate what they consider "sensitive" exports, then maybe they should admit to themselves that the unbridled capitalism they tout as the solution to all social problems isn't such a sound philosophy after all.

    9. Re:but... by philspear · · Score: 1

      Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?

      Well, the article mentions that most of them were bound for Iran, China, or Mexico. China of course likely has some of the technology we're guarding. The other two have technology yeah, and Mexico developing new weapons should not be a big concern in and of itself.

      Iran's army, on the other hand, is further behind somewhat technologically, and should not have high-tech weapons. Of course the US has not been responsible or moral with our weapons either, that's the arrogance, but at the end of the day I'd rather FEWER violent governments have powerful weapons than more.

    10. Re:but... by eosp · · Score: 2, Funny

      9.81 m/s^2: It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

    11. Re:but... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?

      The US seems to be the only country with advanced uncooled thermal imaging technology. Earlier this year I read a story about several Chinese being caught trying to smuggle thermal imagers out of the US and into China (presumably for reverse-engineering and cloning).

      I suppose this makes me a "traitor", but I actually hope they succeed in grabbing that technology. I'd love to buy a thermal imager, especially if someone can bump up the resolution to several times the current 320x200. However, they still cost many thousands of dollars because of the limited manufacturing.

      I can't speak to other technologies, but I have trouble believing that's the only one that fits in with what the article was describing.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    12. Re:but... by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      nope doesn't work. 2.998x10^8 m/s might be teh lawz; but g goes with 1/r^2.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    13. Re:but... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It has nothing to do with arrogance or "IP" in the usual slashdot sense of the word. These export compliance laws have everything to do with countries we are attempting to sanction for whatever reasons.

      For computers of the grade I work on there are some 7-8 countries we are simply not allowed to sell to (mostly middle eastern), not even if it's through a local US based exporter. Considerable effort is made on our part to try to uncover the ultimate destination of your machine(s). I would recommend, for example, never jokingly saying you intend to buy the machine for nuclear weapons. You seriously will be turned down, probably forever, and seriously will be investigated by people not well known for adherence to laws in any country, including the US. That would be obvious to anyone actually intending to do so, of course, but more subtle means are used as well.

      This article is more akin to cuban cigars than pirated Britney Spears CDs. We know they have computers, but we don't want them to profit by our economic system in obtaining them. We can't stop them from manufacturing their own, or from buying from other countries...but by subtracting the US from the picture, like it or not, we can significantly hurt them. It does not matter what nationalities were involved in the design of a machine (often not American, or at least not by birth), it just matters who manufactured it. An Intel CPU should never show up in North Korea, for example.

      The technology/designs itself? I think we know they probably have many important pieces. But knowing how something works is entirely different than being able to build it, and do so on a wide enough scale to be a threat. That's mostly what the intent is.

    14. Re:but... by PachmanP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would really really love to know how the world would be today if the US (and hopefully all the others) put all their defense/war budgets into humanitarian/environmental projects instead. I wonder if it really would be a utopia or if it would have fallen into chaos without the threat of such vast arms.

      We'd be speaking Russian? Or German? Or maybe Chinese? Although maybe if you were blond and fair skinned it would be a utopia. Or maybe without the threat of the capitalists the communist utopia would have been achieved. That said I'm of the opinion that if someone doesn't have a really big stick all the people with medium sticks would spend ALL of their time trying to beat the sh*t out of the people with slightly smaller sticks... At least until the guys with the rocks started teaming up...

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    15. Re:but... by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      As far as the military aspects are concerned (which I'm willing to bet are the majority of the cases), it's not about who does and doesn't have the technologies. It's about the possibility of vulnerabilities being discovered and taken advantage of by our present and future enemies (in other words everyone).

      Take cryptography used to encrypt radio traffic for the Air Force; yeah, we believe that the encryption would be nearly impossible to break. But given a working piece of hardware, if a vulnerability exists, it will be found. Not to mention the fact that you don't need to intercept communications to wreak havoc. With working hardware it may be possible to determine the best jamming or spoofing strategy.

    16. Re:but... by Xeth · · Score: 1

      No, it's not.

      There's two things we're talking about in this situation. The first is advanced military technology. Most other countries do not have these things, if only because their military R&D budgets are smaller. This is aircraft parts, nuclear technology, etc.

      The other thing is regular small arms. Nobody is saying that you can't get those things elsewhere, but that America shouldn't necessarily export those anywhere in any quantity. To, you know, stop random warlords or organized crime from being able to acquire military equipment in large supply.

      On a personal level, I am deeply disturbed by your anti-American bias. Not everything America (or Americans) does is a pure expression of arrogance and contempt.

      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
    17. Re:but... by mi · · Score: 0

      Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?

      What exactly is the point of this (off-topic) "Insight"? Whether the US is "the only" or not does not matter — we see (potential) enemies try to acquire, what we don't want them to have, and we try to prevent it from happening. That's all.

      Are you the only guy with money in your wallet? Is not it arrogant of you to try to prevent it from being stolen — there is nothing special about your wallet, is there?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    18. Re:but... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?
      I mean, I know many Americans like to believe the US invented absolutely everything and are ahead of everyone else technologically, but in fact they really didn't and aren't.

      I think you'll find that technologies commonly found outside the U.S. don't see a lot of demand for smugglers to sneak them out of the U.S. illegally.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    19. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, I know many Americans like to believe the US invented absolutely everything and are ahead of everyone else technologically, but in fact they really didn't and aren't.

      Well, we do know that the US invented milling machines that allowed shaping of anti-cavitation (quieter) submarine props. I never did find out what consequences Japan or Toshiba really suffered for selling that technology to the Russians.

    20. Re:but... by j.+andrew+rogers · · Score: 1

      The reality is that the US did invent many of these technologies and in some cases is still significantly ahead of the rest of the world with respect to a number of types of design and fabrication technologies. There is mathematics and algorithm research that is outright classified and has never been published. The US is still responsible for grossly disproportionate amount of the R&D in the industrialized world. The numbers don't lie, and places like Europe do not remotely pull their per capita weight in R&D no matter how you mangle the numbers.

      Now, some of this technology, like encryption algorithms, is a horse that has long since left the barn. Other technologies, like advanced materials fabrication, is an area where non-US capabilities are often technologically inferior even though it is well-known that this technology exists and you can buy the finished product overseas -- basically a very technologically advanced trade secret. And then there are technologies that have no foreign equivalents that may not be exportable at all, which includes a not insignificant range of science and applied mathematics research.

      And no, it is not arrogant to think that a lot of this technology is unique to the US, since that is the factual case. Sure, some of it is idiotic and pointless policy, but there is a lot of technological know-how that does not exist anywhere else. The fact that US military technologically is chronically a full generation ahead of the rest of the industrialized world essentially implies this (the reheating of 1980s technology by the Russians notwithstanding), as does the fact that most R&D still happens in that country. If the EU was doing vast amounts of R&D that was comparable, a case might be made, but it isn't. Neither is Asia.

    21. Re:but... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      but we really are the first many times. I think that the NSA is filled with former DoD contractors that know disruptive technology from small companies that is immature but would make multi-billion dollar contracts obsolete. Many export controls are DOD corporate welfare, because once a small company is discredited, only the "official" contractors can develop it.. of course it will be years late and many times over budget but "capitalism" will be safe.

    22. Re:but... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      It's actually 32 feet/sec^2. The Europeans stole it and converted it to the metric system to cover their tracks.

    23. Re:but... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand, the reason that other countries try to acquire American technologies is not because they are not capable of reseraching and developing them, but rather to save the billions of dollars that would be necessary (and have already been spent by the United States) to duplicate work products which can be acquired for mere millions of dollars or less through overt or clandestine means. At the very least having working pieces of foreign technology is like having access to the source code. Everyone knows what an operating system is and basically what it does, but imagine trying to build one from scratch when the Linux and BSD source codes are availabe (if only to look at or strip for ideas). Perhaps now you see why nations prefer to take the five finger discount or the black market approach when they are unable to acquire the technology through legitimate means.

    24. Re:but... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?
      I mean, I know many Americans like to believe the US invented absolutely everything and are ahead of everyone else technologically, but in fact they really didn't and aren't.

      No one is thinking that the US is the only country with or capable of these technologies, however, there must be some semblance of control over what goes where and to whom. The story simply states that there has been a large spike in illegal exporting of technologies in the past few years.

    25. Re:but... by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I meant to ask really is I would love to know what the world would be like if everyone decided to do away with their sticks.

      Would a lack of big sticks effectively breed out the smaller sticks? Would there be a need for someone to go make a medium stick if there wasn't anyone with a bigger stick to start with?

      To make a less vague example: If the US spent the money it has on the War in Iraq/Afghanistan on humanitarian efforts in those exact same countries would there still be such a level of insurgency and resentment or would the common people whose lives would have been vastly improved weeded out the problems themselves? I mean, why are those people turning to extremism? If I didn't have water to drink, food to eat, a hospital for when I was sick I could easily be turned to go "fight the enemy". If I had those things given to me (or access to them in the first place) I can't imagine myself able to be stirred up to that level of rage at all. I sometimes think different to others, but rather than focusing so much on putting out the fire, why can't people spent more focus on finding out why the fire started in the first place?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    26. Re:but... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      9.81 m/s^2: It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

      It isn't, actually. It's a consequence of a law.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    27. Re:but... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?

      IIRC US export controls apply to things developed outside of the US and previously imported. It's even possible that they could apply to a re-export to wherever the whatever was originally invented...
      It's also daft for any country to think that if they can't stop weapons, drugs and people entering that country illegally they can do much about information leaving it.

    28. Re:but... by mpe · · Score: 1

      There's two things we're talking about in this situation. The first is advanced military technology. Most other countries do not have these things, if only because their military R&D budgets are smaller.

      Or possibly because most countries use their military to protect themselves rather than to invade other countries (on the other side of the planet).

      The other thing is regular small arms. Nobody is saying that you can't get those things elsewhere, but that America shouldn't necessarily export those anywhere in any quantity. To, you know, stop random warlords or organized crime from being able to acquire military equipment in large supply.

      Except that these kind of people don't appear to have too much of a problem aquiring weapons in the first place.

    29. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies" ...

      Yeah, for example, just look at Nokia, them Japan know the way! ... (or was it Allspark technology?)

    30. Re:but... by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 1

      Having a big stick is very profitable. Smaller sticks actually help keep the big stick propped up on its shaky ground, for longer than it would be on its own.
      I agree with you but unfortunately there is no short term buck to be made in education and basic services for US's biggest export industry, the industrial military complex. On top of that, if you educate then the population will probably be smart enough to say No and negotiate a better contract when you try to take all their oil and other natural resources...

    31. Re:but... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Sir, I take my hat off to you. Thomas Hobbes himself could not have said it so eloquently.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    32. Re:but... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      An Intel CPU should never show up in North Korea, for example.
      But given that intel CPUs are sold over the counter with no verification in many countries worldwide the US government doesn't have much hope in stopping them getting there.

      export controls may work for military or large industrial or scientific products but they don't have a hope for anything sold over the counter to consumers.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    33. Re:but... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      And according to the US patent census, there is probably a patentable idea in the grand parent post.
      Honestly, there is really an American bias at thinking one should cash out a maximum out of ideas by preventing others to have them.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    34. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I know many Americans like to believe the US invented absolutely everything and are ahead of everyone else technologically"

      Really? How many Americans? How do you know this? I know your mother gives $2 blow jobs to put you through school so just shut up and be happy you have an education.

    35. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't say !! ??? !!

    36. Re:but... by Xeth · · Score: 1

      Or possibly because most countries use their military to protect themselves rather than to invade other countries (on the other side of the planet).

      No. Invading people doesn't give you advanced technology, spending money on military R&D does. This isn't Master of Orion where you get technology for winning a battle.

      Except that these kind of people don't appear to have too much of a problem aquiring weapons in the first place.

      Ah, so because some criminals can get weapons anyway, we should just sell as much military hardware as we like to anyone who wants it, as they'll just get it anywhere? Does that translate well into your views on civilian arms-control? Do you agree with the statement that the US should sell weapons to whoever wants them, in whatever quantity they want?

      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
    37. Re:but... by xolo · · Score: 1

      What I meant to ask really is I would love to know what the world would be like if everyone decided to do away with their sticks. Would a lack of big sticks effectively breed out the smaller sticks? Would there be a need for someone to go make a medium stick if there wasn't anyone with a bigger stick to start with? To make a less vague example: If the US spent the money it has on the War in Iraq/Afghanistan on humanitarian efforts in those exact same countries would there still be such a level of insurgency and resentment or would the common people whose lives would have been vastly improved weeded out the problems themselves? I mean, why are those people turning to extremism? If I didn't have water to drink, food to eat, a hospital for when I was sick I could easily be turned to go "fight the enemy". If I had those things given to me (or access to them in the first place) I can't imagine myself able to be stirred up to that level of rage at all. I sometimes think different to others, but rather than focusing so much on putting out the fire, why can't people spent more focus on finding out why the fire started in the first place?

      Ok, here's why it wouldn't work and why no contry tries to acomplish its goals in that way.

      If we donated humanitarian aid to Iraq/Afghanistan there would still be people in positions of power in those countries that would eiter 1) not let us give aid in the first place or 2) take the aid for themselves and the poor still end up poor.

      It might not seem so obvious here because already have the 'infrastructure of compassion' that would generally allow for such aid. When powerful people with 'big sticks' can do whatever they want, they will manipulate the circumstances to their own benefit every time. If you still want to give aid to those without power (who actually need aid), you have to stop the people with the sticks. The only realistic way of doing so seems (as far as I can tell) to use bigger sticks. Sucks, but it's the way people work.

    38. Re:but... by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      What I meant to ask really is I would love to know what the world would be like if everyone decided to do away with their sticks.

      You'd have an unstable system that would be wildly upset by the first person that decided to pull out a stick. You'd keep them in check with a stick which would be wielded by [x]. Many would view [x] as inattentive/ineffective/corrupt, and would wield their own sticks, or very stiff twigs (technically not a stick, your honor), or complex financial weapons.

      On the other hand, I think the Marshall Plan is a good example of your thoughts in action.

    39. Re:but... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You could get T-shirts with an encryption program that were technically classed as munitions. Being perl, it looked like it had been run on its own source.

      Shame I can't find it now, there was also picture going round teh tubes of it written on a chick's butt.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    40. Re:but... by Draek · · Score: 1

      Probably the latter, but that doesn't mean we can't decrease our (as in the world's) military budget while still maintaining a sane world.

      There's always a point where looking for an even bigger stick is just compensating for something else.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    41. Re:but... by afabbro · · Score: 1

      To make a less vague example: If the US spent the money it has on the War in Iraq/Afghanistan on humanitarian efforts in those exact same countries would there still be such a level of insurgency and resentment or would the common people whose lives would have been vastly improved weeded out the problems themselves? I mean, why are those people turning to extremism? If I didn't have water to drink, food to eat, a hospital for when I was sick I could easily be turned to go "fight the enemy". If I had those things given to me (or access to them in the first place) I can't imagine myself able to be stirred up to that level of rage at all.

      Certainly, if I was a multimillionaire or a university-trained architect or an electrical engineer or a mechanical engineer or a doctor, I would never "turn to extremism".

      Yeah. It's poverty. Couldn't possibly be the culture or religion. I mean, the huge numbers of Australian Aborigine, Appalachian, and South American terrorists clinches the case that it can't possibly be Islam.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    42. Re:but... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Look at the power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe. The ZPF party give themselves the ministerial positions for the police force, the army and international relations, while giving the MDC the education, research, health, cultural arts and agricultural ministerial positions. The response by MDC is to claim that ZPF have "all the good jobs".

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    43. Re:but... by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      Master of Orion no, Civilization yes. If you need technology with a lot of expensive prerequisites try spending your resource units on spies and using the 'steal technology' action on the enemy cities.

      No. Invading people doesn't give you advanced technology, spending money on military R&D does. This isn't Master of Orion where you get technology for winning a battle

    44. Re:but... by Xeth · · Score: 1

      Really? I'm pretty sure that MoO2 gave you a chance to steal technology when you conquered a planet (Though I've rarely seen it, as I usually play Psilons).

      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
    45. Re:but... by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      Yes, well that may work also, but Iran and China haven't conquered the planet yet. Try back later in the week.

      Really? I'm pretty sure that MoO2 gave you a chance to steal technology when you conquered a planet

    46. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know many Americans like to believe the US invented absolutely everything and are ahead of everyone else technologically, but in fact they really didn't and aren't.

      Shrug. At least it is counter-balanced by the strongly held belief within non-US countries that all of their problems, whether it be geo-political, local economic issues, or the fact that the local women aren't sufficiently attractive, is entirely the fault of US corporate and political hegemony.

    47. Re:but... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I mean, I know many Americans like to believe the US invented absolutely everything and are ahead of everyone else technologically, but in fact they really didn't and aren't.

      Absolutely. I mean, I know many non-Americans think they know everything about Americans and feel they can legitimately slam us for any reason at all, but in fact, you really don't and can't.

      The blind assumptions you make about us are just as arrogant and unappealing as the thoughts and feelings you ascribe to all 300-odd million of us. You might want to ease off on the generalizations. Kinda makes you look stupid, as if the only thing you know about the United States and its people is what you've read on Slashdot.

      Sour grapes on your part, really. Nobody I know has ever claimed that America knows everything and invented everything (more of your useless generalizing again) but the fact is, we do know a lot and invented even more.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    48. Re:but... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      When robots are significantly more useful, the Communist utopia will begin.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    49. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?
      I mean, I know many Americans like to believe the US invented absolutely everything and are ahead of everyone else technologically, but in fact they really didn't and aren't.

      Many have already provided reasonable responses, but so far nobody has mentioned this: Even when a particular technology is available elsewhere, the US still has a motivation to restrict export of that technology for internal political reasons. If an act of aggression against the US occurs (not necessarily on home soil, could be targeting an embassy, aircraft carrier, etc.), and the attack is particularly effective (i.e. jerks the typical citizen's attention away from "Dancing with The Stars"), and a key component of the attack is advanced US technology (regardless of the availability of equivalents elsewhere), then politicians will need to answer hard questions. Politicians prefer to avoid pissed-off citizens, and they especially don't want to answer any hard questions.

      - T

  7. compscigeek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That 255 number represents more than a six-fold increase from fiscal year 2005

    I wish that would have been a two or eight fold increase :(

  8. polemics aside... by perlchild · · Score: 1

    Just how much of the difference is the increase in attempts, and how much is the fact that with an election year, some departments have to arrest perpetrators to get funding? I mean it's not like we have an independant verified count of attempted illegal exports...

    1. Re:polemics aside... by marc.andrysco · · Score: 1

      Department of Justice this week said it has placed criminal charges or convictions against more than 255 defendants in the past two fiscal years -- 145 in 2008 and 110 in 2007. That 255 number represents more than a six-fold increase from fiscal year 2005, when the DOJ said about 40 individuals or companies were convicted of over 100 criminal violations of export control laws.

      So, there were 255 defendants charged or convicted for a period of two years. And there were 40 invidivudals/companies convicted in solely 2005. First of all, they are comparing numbers from two years with the numbers of one year. Also, they are comparing being charged or convicted with those who were only convicted. To me, those statistics sound funny.

    2. Re:polemics aside... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Just how much of the difference is the increase in attempts, and how much is the fact that with an election year, some departments have to arrest perpetrators to get funding?

      I'd go with "increase in attempts"

      Most of the time, once you've proved your credentials, all you have to do is sign a piece of paper stating you won't export [export controlled item] and it is yours.

      The paperwork gets filed with the government and that is pretty much it.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:polemics aside... by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      Just how much of the difference is the increase in attempts, and how much is the fact that with an election year, some departments have to arrest perpetrators to get funding? I mean it's not like we have an independant verified count of attempted illegal exports...

      Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view) the gov't only plans budgets a year at a time. So they would need funding whether it is an election year or not. Now, if you are thinking they are counting on the fact that there may be a Democrat for president then my question is: isn't criminal justice more of a Republican thing in which a Democrat would be lenient on? I'm genuinely asking because I'm not sure on this particular topic whether it is traditionally a Republican or Democratic topic for wooing voters. If not then it does indeed make sense that they are working harder in anticipation of a Democrat win.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  9. 255 defendants by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Department of Justice this week said it has placed criminal charges or convictions against more than 255 defendants in the past two fiscal years

    The true number is actually much higher, but with all the technology going overseas, the feds have to do with 8bit registers.

    Badabumm - disssssh. Thanks! I'll be here all week. Try the lamb.

    1. Re:255 defendants by jd · · Score: 1

      Secret prisons are a crime! Free the Motorola 68000!

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  10. And the Answer Is by PingPongBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes.

    Of course, by legalizing it.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    1. Re:And the Answer Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I for one would prefer advanced fighter jet technology (i.e. F-22) to stay IN the united states and out of China, Russia, Israel, Iran...etc.

    2. Re:And the Answer Is by s_p_oneil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm going to have to go with AC there. They're not just talking about software. They're talking about physical pieces of military hardware being stolen. And in the case of software, it's military software to run that hardware. If you think it would help to make stealing legal, I wouldn't mind visiting your house to see what you've got that's worth taking. ;-)

    3. Re:And the Answer Is by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Security through obscurity does not work. The F22 is no more advanced than a military jet any country produce if they wanted too. If the Russians or Chinese wanted to produce stealth fighters to fight the US, it would come down to who has more high quality aircraft production facilities NOT who has better designs.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    4. Re:And the Answer Is by Zebra_X · · Score: 1

      It is legal to export, to the right parties. You also need to get an export license.

    5. Re:And the Answer Is by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      I for one would prefer advanced fighter jet technology (i.e. F-22) to stay IN the united states and out of China, Russia, Israel, Iran...etc.

      Have some kids, and teach them some math then.

      China, Russia, Israel, and Iran, are some of our best technical feeder schools. The training gap, between American-born students and foreign-born students in the US, is growing. Don't let the mounting grade inflation, of our ivy league schools and mainstream technical universities, give you a false sense of peace and security.

    6. Re:And the Answer Is by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      I for one would prefer advanced fighter jet technology (i.e. F-22) to stay IN the united states and out of China, Russia, Israel, Iran...etc.

      After seeing what those advanced fighter jets can do, I'm sure THEY would like that too.

    7. Re:And the Answer Is by VisceralLogic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Eperience and expertise are a huge player here. You can read all the books you want, but it doesn't mean you'll be able to actually design a better aircraft.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    8. Re:And the Answer Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      illegal export != stealing.

      Lets say I live in the US (I don't) and I invent an encryption algorithm of a certain strength. It would be illegal for me to export it. If I did so, exactly who did I steal from?

      And for the hardware being stolen. Well, if its stolen, can't we use the laws for stealing physical property to deal with it rather than export regulations?

      To take the argument to the absurd in the other location, would you think it would make sense to make talking to people from other countries illegal? You might be talking about where the white house is, can't have that fall into terrorists hands.

      To bring it back to the middle, no one is saying ship the F-22 to whoever wants it. But the current restrictions prevent exporting some things that everyone else already has. To the extent that to develop some software, you are better to do the work outside the US so you can sell it everywhere in the world, rather than in the US making your market just the US.

    9. Re:And the Answer Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the (very) short term that is true - trial and error is usually necessary when actually putting theory into practice.

      However, a lot of money for lots of parallel testing and smart, focused people leading a project can do incredible things - just look at the Manhattan project. It usually comes down to motivation and resources.

      For an individual, books won't do. For a large, well funded agency with resources and smart people, I wouldn't count on it for very long at all.

    10. Re:And the Answer Is by mpe · · Score: 1

      I for one would prefer advanced fighter jet technology (i.e. F-22) to stay IN the united states and out of China, Russia, Israel, Iran...etc.

      Russia and China are perfectly capable of producing advanced fighter aircraft. However they are not going to do so unless they actually need such aircraft. Israel is most likely exempt from the restrictions, even if they wern't there are so many highly trusted Israelis within the US that Israel probably knows everything there is to know about one.
      Which only leaves Iran...

    11. Re:And the Answer Is by MrMr · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the Chinese Russians Iranians etc. completely agree with you:
      They also prefer that the US keeps that technology IN the united states.

    12. Re:And the Answer Is by houghi · · Score: 1

      About stealing the software: you can steal all my software. In fact I stole it as well from websites like http://software.opensuse.org/

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    13. Re:And the Answer Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFS -- "stealing" an idea (i.e. copying) is not analgous to stealing property from someone's house.

    14. Re:And the Answer Is by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The Russians are very good at aerodynamics, but they lag a little bit in engine efficiency and avionics. Plus, the US has been producing stealth aircraft for nearly thirty years. And as anyone who's worked on large projects like this knows, prior experience and institutional knowledge are key. Just look at the Ares program (rolleyes).

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    15. Re:And the Answer Is by knutkracker · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd prefer it if that technology was in the hands of a coutry with a better record regarding bombing of other countries for no good reason. China, Russia, Israel, Iran have bombed fewer countries combined since 1945 than the US alone.

    16. Re:And the Answer Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since the US is the largest arms dealer on the planet, I think they are more concerned with lost profits than if the technology falls into the hands of shady country X, Y or Z. Just look at the arms deals of the 80s and compare that to what is going on today.

    17. Re:And the Answer Is by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      I can understand if you want to hold onto your tech, but I resent Israel being grouped with those tyrannical bastard countries.

    18. Re:And the Answer Is by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind visiting your house to see what you've got that's worth taking. ;-)

      Not much. It's been pretty thoroughly picked over already.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    19. Re:And the Answer Is by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Security through obscurity does not work."

      this is false. It is a perfectly acceptable member of the process of security.

      Like all security it has a time and a place.

      Example Security through obscurity is used as part of the nuclear arms security. Do you know the launch code? where the ball is? what the launch codes are?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  11. Shocking by kipin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keep adding additional rules, regulations and laws and people tend to start breaking more laws since more of them exist to break.

    --
    If I can not smoke in heaven, then I shall not go. -- Mark Twain
  12. I don't get it by Andr+T. · · Score: 1

    The illegal exports bound for Iran have involved such items as missile guidance systems, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) components, military aircraft parts, night vision systems and other materials.
    ...
    The firehose of technology flowing overseas isn't the result necessarily of a coordinated effort by a group of terrorists or even governments but rather private-sector businessmen, scientists, students, and academics from overseas are among the most active collectors of sensitive US technology. Most did not initially come to the US with that intent. Instead, after finding that they had access to technology in demand overseas, they engaged in illegal collection to satisfy a desire for profits, acclaim, or patriotism to their home nations, the DOJ stated.

    "Hello, airport officer. I'm an Iranian teacher and I'm going back to Iran with this missile guidance system. Ok, right? I'm not a terrorist or something."

    --

    Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    1. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > or patriotism to their home nations

      Good to hear there were no Dutch involved.

    2. Re:I don't get it by Eudial · · Score: 1

      The illegal exports bound for Iran have involved such items as missile guidance systems, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) components, military aircraft parts, night vision systems and other materials.

      Doesn't having specialized components for improvised explosives sort of kill the whole point with improvised explosives? I thought improvised explosives was the whole MacGyver deal, where you build an ICBM out of some shoelaces, pen sharpener shavings and a paper clip.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    3. Re:I don't get it by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      I think you're also going to need some chewing gum to hold your ICBM together.

    4. Re:I don't get it by scrod98 · · Score: 1

      When they say 'IED components', they are talking about microchips that can be used as timers or remote detonator circuits. This is the difficult part, you could be exporting parts for a middle-eastern version of tickle me elmo, but if that same part is 'dual use' you, the exporter, are screwed.

      --
      LETS DECOMPOSE & ENJOY ASSEMBLING
    5. Re:I don't get it by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      maybe they were importing 10,000 Casio watches and 10 kilotons of fertilizer?

    6. Re:I don't get it by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 1

      How about:

      "Hello, 'airport officer'. I'm an Australian engineer and I'd really love to have an infrared camera on my car to assist when driving in fog, at night, or to see school kids about to run out from behind a bus or SUV."

    7. Re:I don't get it by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Some of the devices use precision machined parts that are made in Iran. You could build an IED without them, but they wouldn't be as deadly.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  13. How many of those exports by overshoot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    were commodities readily available elsewhere but restricted, like standard cryptographic algorithms, from export from the USA -- even if they were originally imported?

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:How many of those exports by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since Bernstein sued crypto can be exported without restriction.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    2. Re:How many of those exports by scrod98 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not true - US Bureau of Industry and Security still requires that encryption software export is controlled (15CFR774). We have applied for and received several license exemptions, but still must report our exports of our software that includes blowfish twice per year, to the actual addresses each shipment is sent.

      --
      LETS DECOMPOSE & ENJOY ASSEMBLING
    3. Re:How many of those exports by demachina · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they count the nose cone fuse assemblies the U.S. Air Force accidentally exported to Taiwan.

      --
      @de_machina
    4. Re:How many of those exports by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      What about TrueCrypt, do they need a license as well? How about OpenSSH? The encryption horse has long since left the barn and any attempts to close the gate now are just security theatre. The real challenges going forward are key management and security at the endpoints.

    5. Re:How many of those exports by Dionysus · · Score: 1

      Don't know about TrueCrypt, but OpenSSH is developed by Canadians and Germans. Pretty sure the US can't force them to get a license.

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    6. Re:How many of those exports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow thats pretty funny. Considering blowfish can be accessed anywhere on the WWW.

    7. Re:How many of those exports by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Open source crypto can be exported without restriction as long as you notify the Feds and make sure they have access. When they first changed the rules, Debian decided to notify the Feds about each and every piece of software added to our repositories, saying it might contain crypto. We were expecting the Feds to complain loudly about this (since our unstable repositories can get several dozens of updates per day), but instead they thanked us and started telling others to look to us as a model of how to do it right.

      Sheesh! :)

      p.s. this post should not be taken as an official guideline. If you're going to be exporting crypto, even open source crypto, I strongly recommend checking the regs for yourself before jumping in.

  14. Is it for real? by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this spike for real, or is it the result of increased enforcement efforts?

    ...laura

    1. Re:Is it for real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get yo dick wet?

      Probably not. The last time I checked, /.'ers don't tend to take baths.

    2. Re:Is it for real? by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      It is more then likely a push by the HSA to continue to justify their existence

      So much of the heavy encryption stuff is Open Source that it is pretty much all over the world, and with the Air Force sending Nuclear Initiators to Taiwan you can be pretty sure all that stuff is pretty much available.

      It could also be items that are pretty bleeding edge that the knowledge of is not in general circulation yet. Hell for 10 years after I got out of the Navy, I could not even export myself to a non-Nato country. I applied for a Visa to go to Czechoslovakia 6 years post service, and got a knock on my door.

      Some of it I can understand the NSA, CIA and their like getting twitchy about but most of it, I don't see their point.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    3. Re:Is it for real? by Cosmic+AC · · Score: 1

      You should ask this guy

    4. Re:Is it for real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably just as likely the result of increased need for further funding.

  15. 0xFFFF by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good thing there wasn't another attempt, otherwise the counter would've overflowed.

    WORD.

    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    1. Re:0xFFFF by davidwr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Final Jeopardy answer:

      WORD.

      Final Jeopardy question: What do they need a longer one of?

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    2. Re:0xFFFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      still talking about words in 64-bit era?

    3. Re:0xFFFF by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Good thing there wasn't another attempt, otherwise the counter would've overflowed.

      WORD.

      OCTET.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:0xFFFF by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The 1980s called - they want their 16-bit microcomputer back.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    5. Re:0xFFFF by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      A word doesn't mean a 16 bit thingy. It's the natural length of the integer or address in a particular computer.

      I've used machines with wordsizes of 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 60 and 64 bits.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    6. Re:0xFFFF by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Bird is the WORD.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  16. Not necessarily nefarious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep in mind that export control violations aren't necessarily nefarious. Working for a defense contractor which also did business abroad gave me the impression that the vast majority of violations came from sloppiness, disorganization, or plain human error. Item not known to be controlled; documents, facts, or figures accidentally given in presentations; or something simply slipping out in casual conversations lead to many export control cases.

  17. Exporting DRM by cpghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where, oh where is the DoC and DoJ when it comes to forbidding the export of this abomination called DRM?

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:Exporting DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where, oh where is the DoC and DoJ when it comes to forbidding the export of this abomination called DRM?

      Sucking the dicks of the record companies who made them corporate shills.

      Capitalism has co-opted what you think are your ideals.

  18. Balance of Trade, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. Imports significantly more than it exports; in order to maintain any degree of economic power in the world, it has to export *something*, and logically, that will be whatever the U.S. has the most competitive advantage in, vis-a-vis technology.

  19. What about the net import in technical expertise ? by giorgist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The cost of educating a person is very high.
    What of the net import in technical expertise ?
    Often some of the very best students go to US, and end up staying and doing high end re-search.
    The US didn't have to pay to feed and bring up this person. If this person is 1 in 100,
    the US didn't have to pay and feed and educate 100 people and selectively keep only the best one without having to bother
    with the rest.

    I would say that the US is getting the good end of the deal

    G

  20. Is there an increase? by maglor_83 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Department of Justice this week said it has placed criminal charges or convictions against more than 255 defendants in the past two fiscal years â" 145 in 2008 and 110 in 2007. That 255 number represents more than a six-fold increase from fiscal year 2005, when the DOJ said about 40 individuals or companies were convicted of over 100 criminal violations of export control laws

    So how many were charged and then aquitted in 2005?

    1. Re:Is there an increase? by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      This is the new United states, the correct answer is 'how many were deported without trial or simply placed on a 'watch list' in order to prevent them from traveling?'

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    2. Re:Is there an increase? by netscan · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work like that. Before the DoJ even brings charges (in most cases) the settlement has already been made. In the small percentage of cases that aren't pre-settled, it's basically because the charged parties have not answered the proposed charging letters and have not yet re-entered the US. 'Course once they set foot on US soil or a country which has extradition treaties with the US (which includes extradition for export violations, which most don't) then it's game over as they have already been "tried" and convicted in absentia.

  21. This is bad, cause... by Perseid · · Score: 1

    ...if we get over 256 the DoJ might crash.

  22. Sure, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only if there's something to export. If I have not mistaken, most technology in U.S. are foreign import, perhaps just "legally" patented in the U.S.

  23. The alternatives by PPH · · Score: 1

    Legalize the export, so we can build it here and sell it overseas.

    The alternative is to force capital out to a market where the technology can be produced, marketed globally and then imported back into this country.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:The alternatives by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      You're not thinking about the right technology.

      I'd guess about 99% of the violations involve military related technology and research. There's no way that development is ever going to be out sourced. In fact, most of it probably only exists because the government is paying for it in the first place.

    2. Re:The alternatives by PPH · · Score: 1

      If the Pentagon wants something that has been developed overseas, they'll import it. Or their contractor will. There are amendments to ITAR that allow this if the technology is not available in the USA. Contractors like Boeing and Lockheed have been bitten enough times for export problems that they've moved their R&D offshore, particularly for dual use technology (stuff used in commercial aviation and space programs).

      There will come a time that if the US military wants to fight with anything more than pointed sticks, it will have to be imported.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:The alternatives by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      If the Pentagon wants something that has been developed overseas, they'll import it. Or their contractor will. There are amendments to ITAR that allow this if the technology is not available in the USA. Contractors like Boeing and Lockheed have been bitten enough times for export problems that they've moved their R&D offshore, particularly for dual use technology (stuff used in commercial aviation and space programs).

      You're kind of missing the point. The technologies that are illegal to export are developed here, in the US, under DoD contracts. If Boeing tried telling them that they planned on doing all their classified development work in China, they wouldn't get the contract. Hell, most of the contracts are written so that the work doesn't even belong to the contractor, it belongs to the government. The DoD will never let classified R&D be done in foreign countries, and that's most likely the export restricted technology the article is talking about.

      There will come a time that if the US military wants to fight with anything more than pointed sticks, it will have to be imported.

      LOL! Don't hold your breath. The US spends more on defense than the next 80 something countries combined, and that's not going to change any time soon. If the DoD says "We want made in America," it'll be made in America.

    4. Re:The alternatives by GrpA · · Score: 1

      No, the technologies are not all developed in the US, and many of the technologies affected have legitimate civilian uses and markets.

      A lot of technology, eg, 3rd Generation Night Vision, is also created outside of the US and some countries even have Second Generation technology that now far exceeds the specifications of any US gen2 equipment and matches or exceeds much of the 3rd generation technology as well, especially in urban conditions. ( ALL Hypergen and Autogated Hypergen Night vision technology is now made outside of the US for example, even though a lot is exported from those countries back to the US for both military and civilian use. ).

      And ITAR restrictions do nothing to slow the exports of military equipment to places like IRAN and IRAQ who can get all the tech they need from places like Russia, but it makes it damn hard to get some legitimate technologies like decent night vision devices in Australia, and what does come over here is incredibly expensive.

      Sure you can get a license to export, but it's made so complex, difficult and inconvenient, with such huge penalties for making innocent mistakes, that almost no US companies will risk it. Look at ITT - they made a genuine mistake and the US government fined them millions of dollars!!! Most US companies just won't take the risk anymore, while companies in the rest of the world are safe to export all they want.

      ITAR may have it's heart in the right area, but it's a pity it's brains aren't there also.

      GrpA.

      --
      Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    5. Re:The alternatives by PPH · · Score: 1

      Mil Spec equipment is by no means state of the art. Other than specialized requirements for rad-hard or EMP resistant designs, commercial technology is generations ahead.

      If the DoD wants to pay Boeing, or anyone else, to re-invent the wheel for them, that's fine. But that doesn't make their version novel or unique. And anyone caught exporting the commercial versions should be free to do so.

      One of the principal reasons that the US spends more then the next 80 countries on defense is that they are stuck with this need to re-invent current technology. They aren't getting 80x the value or the performance.

      Example: The DoD has been spending millions developing autonomous pilotless helicopters for surveilance applications. Technology related to autonomous aircraft has been identified as sensitive for the purpose of export licenses. It doesn't matter whether it is part of a DoD contract or not. Meanwhile, this technology has matured to the point that Japanese farmers use autonomous helicopters to do crop dusting. Their technology is mature, inexpensive and simple to use. We aren't keeping the technology out of terrorist's hands (they can buy the Japanese stuff) but we are keeping US companies from serving a potential global market.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  24. Re:Fuck Amerikkkka! by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why would we want to stop the theft of our technology.

    You can't destroy America properly if we keep it !

    Both parties have sold us down the river...

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  25. Laptops and cameras, too by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative
    Note that while the headlines make it seem like they're talking about nuclear weapons technologies and high tech, the majority of these are probably violations of the ITAR laws that have little or nothing to do with weapons-- the law is so broadly written that almost anything could be "arms". Export a laptop and you're violating ITAR.

    ... and then, if you scroll down a little in the referenced article, this line is interesting: "Mexico seems to be the hotspot for illegal exports of firearms, including assault weapons and rifles, as well as large quantities of ammunition, the DOJ stated." So, apparently bullets are part of this "illegal export of [US] technology"

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Laptops and cameras, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, so does that mean it's illegal to walk across the border from Tijuana to San Diego CA (busiest ground border crossing in the US) buy a laptop/camera at a store in San Diego and walk back across to Mexico? Because that'd be ridiculous.

    2. Re:Laptops and cameras, too by Detritus · · Score: 1

      The USA has a legitimate interest in restricting exports of weapons and ammunition to people who are hostile to us or to our allies. The Mexican government is engaged in a nasty war with drug traffickers in Mexico. I'd prefer to see that any weapons exports went to the federal government, not the drug gangs.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Laptops and cameras, too by lxs · · Score: 1

      I remember the days when exporting a C64 to Eastern Europe was illegal.

      It seemed silly even then. Seems even more stupid now.

  26. We don't create the technology. by gnutoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We import bright people from around the world to do it for us. At least we used to. Many of them have gone back home to compete on fair terms. Others work at research centers funded by US multinationals like GE, Microsoft and IBM. Why the US seeks to restrict what foreign people make in foreign countries is as much a mystery as the IP Empire that claims ownership to the fundamental ideas involved. Less and less of this stuff is home grown and made.

  27. it works both ways by BigBadBus · · Score: 3, Informative

    I used to work for Bae Systems in Farnborough and the management there would constantly bemoan the fact that the US couldn't/wouldn't share any technological advances with us for x number of years. We, of course, were expected to share with them, lest we sacrifice our special agreements and co-operations.

    1. Re:it works both ways by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Which is why BAE created BAE Systems Inc.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:it works both ways by BigBadBus · · Score: 1

      I know. I worked for the company when BAE SYSTEMS was announced (it was a directive to write the name in block capitals, since relaxed); the one-way transfer of knowledge and technology was there when I joined in 1999 and was still in force when I left, years later, p*ssing off lots of people. Especially when the Americans would gloat and treat us as a 2nd class company (which is actually not totally unjustified I must add)

  28. Very Few Convictions by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    I am shocked that many more arrests and convictions did not take place. In the mid 1980 era we had numerous stops at air ports in which the government brought in specialists and checked both credentials and the circuit boards that we were carrying within the US. It seems that they were vigilant enough to be concerned that a hand off to another passenger would not take place on a domestic flight to a person who would later fly to another nation. Most of these circuit boards were for robotics.

  29. Monopoly circumvention by mattytee · · Score: 1

    What I got from TFA is, "We want to keep our monopoly on the arms trade." It's obviously true that China/India/who-have-you can build and export these things cheaper, what with the lack of the bulk of our labor law and virtually zero environmental restrictions. The same reason they can build and export anything else cheaper. Ultimately, we want to sell other countries fighter *jets*, not fighter jet technology. The appeal to fear may be effective. But several nations are nuclear with delivery capability to get warheads here already -- that point's really kind of moot.

  30. Terminator technology IS a US tech by cpghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean, I know many Americans like to believe the US invented absolutely everything and are ahead of everyone else technologically, but in fact they really didn't and aren't.

    But this is surely a US invented technology... and IMHO nothing to be proud of, as it already caused famines in Africa and, worst of all, was actually designed to lead to just that consequence.

    Maybe a few export bans of some US technology like this one wouldn't be so wrong, after all?

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:Terminator technology IS a US tech by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      as it already caused famines in Africa

      First of all, I don't think it's ever been used commercially - much less "caused a famine".

      Second of all, how is it different from selling standard hybrid seeds, where most of the offspring is junk anyway?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Terminator technology IS a US tech by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But this is surely a US invented technology... and IMHO nothing to be proud of, as it already caused famines in Africa...

      According to the link you gave, "The technology was under development by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land company in the 1990s and is not yet commercially available. "

      If it's never been used, how could it already have caused famines?

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    3. Re:Terminator technology IS a US tech by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      But this is surely a US invented technology... and IMHO nothing to be proud of, as it already caused famines in Africa and, worst of all, was actually designed to lead to just that consequence.

      Bad link, I think you really mean this.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Terminator technology IS a US tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been used, though not always as intended. It is Monsanto's claimed protection against takeover by GM genetics of non-gm seeds, especially those that are used to produce non-foodstuffs such as medicines, poisons, bacteria, etc by their GM crops. Monsanto publically took ownership of Delta and Pine Land company in 2005, interestingly enough they promised in 1999 not to "commercialize" the terminator gene. They have been using the terminator gene for almost two decades, they have sold seed with the terminator gene as well as producing certain crops themselves with it, however afaik they haven't licensed its use to outside researchers. Depends on your definition of "commercialization" I guess.

      The famine involved comes farmers or governments finding out they were using GM seeds in Africa and refusing to use them again. However they had already used those seeds along with the required heavy chemical fertilizers and chemical pest controls that rendered the land nearly burned out and bereft of things like earthworms that naturally work to improve and renew the soil. This results in a very poor crop when the natural seeds native to Africa, which react poorly to the chemical fertilizers, were replanted into the fields. Also in some cases the farmers had saved some of the seed resulting from the previous year's GM crop only to discover it would not germinate when planted the following year, but they had no other seed to plant nor the means to get it.

      Monsanto has proven time and again throughout their history that they can keep their mistakes from becoming too much of a problem for themselves and the government has helped them a lot in that regard. However their mistakes have killed an unknown but not insignificant number of people. They have ruined many people's lives as well. Do some research, if you get tired of looking at the GM stuff, try BGH or PCP and keep going beyond those. Find out enough about them and you will start reading between the lines when certain topics are discussed in the media.

    5. Re:Terminator technology IS a US tech by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ever see Lord of War? If a Terminator was ever set loose in Africa, as soon as someone found out he was made of scrappable metal he would have been stripped bare.

    6. Re:Terminator technology IS a US tech by WK2 · · Score: 1

      If it's never been used, how could it already have caused famines?

      Because the seeds came back in time and started killing their previous masters. Farmers. No farmers, no food, no food, famine.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    7. Re:Terminator technology IS a US tech by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      But this [wikipedia.org] is surely a US invented technology... and IMHO nothing to be proud of, as it already caused famines in Africa

      Uh, [citation needed]? The very article you point to says they've never actually been used outside of lab environments. How could something that's never been used be causing famines?

    8. Re:Terminator technology IS a US tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as it already caused famines in Africa and, worst of all, was actually designed to lead to just that consequence.

      We shouldn't be telling the Africans how to do anything, they have over 5 thousand years of civilization.

    9. Re:Terminator technology IS a US tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this [wikipedia.org] is surely a US invented technology... and IMHO nothing to be proud of, as it already caused famines in Africa and, worst of all, was actually designed to lead to just that consequence.

      I don't know which is worse -- using GURT technology or not using it.

      In India, they once planted fields with patented, non-GURT wheat or some other such crop. Naturally the wind spread the pollen to other fields which had not bought in, so Monsanto went to court to have those crops destroyed for using their technology without a license.

      In a similar manner, international olive oil producers interfered with the cottage olive oil industry in India. The indigenous women had been bottling and selling the oil in small quantities as a source of a little extra income. They sealed the stoppers in the bottles with wax. This had been going on for ages with no ill effects.

      So the megacorps came in and spread rumors of contaminated locally-produced oil. That allowed them to buy enough legislators to pass a law banning that method of sealing bottles and authorizing only bottles sealed using methods requiring expensive equipment priced well beyond the means of the cottage industries.

      Fuck globalism!

  31. "Illegal export of technology?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Double-U-Tee-Eff is that? I mean I know that certain stuff can't be exported (hardware/software, especially crypto, military weapons, etc. -- and those are trafficked all over the globe without anyone batting an eyelid) but what else is restricted, and why?

    Or is the big news that they've actually *caught* someone doing this?

  32. They need to stop having it made out side of usa f by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 0

    They need to stop having it made out side of usa for one thing.

  33. My corp tries by redelm · · Score: 1
    At work I'm an SME (Subject Matter Expert) who rates technology according to EAR classifications. Everybody is trained about US Export Compliance and shipping will not send anything without paperwork. People are not supposed to send emails of anything remotely questionable or to/facilitating any Highly-Restricted Country.

    Does it work? Sure. Does it fail? Sure. The "bad guys" do get some, but often not everything. And the critical experience is actually pretty easy to control.

    Whether the US should or not is a totally different matter. But it dates from 1790, depriving the evil English Navy of pine logs to make into masts & spars.

  34. Fascist DOJ? They're freedom fighters for peace! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Evil has no border and they'll chase everyone down, because they don't need no stinkin' Constitution as long as a war is declared. War negates all social contracts and bonds to their oaths. War has nothing to do with duty, it is ordered dissociation from civil authority and seizure by minority. What may be known as justice in civil aspect could be looked upon as legalized barbary in military. This is typical in a change of regime for a country.

    Go to Google and search for information on all the assassinations of civil-authorized Generals before and after September 11 2001. It is linked to the British Crown having groomed their New World representative Bush and company, to remove the former authorities to install theirs. All you can do is return to the Holy Bible and make pact to nearest kin for successors and accord to good neighbors for fellowship.

  35. Most of thist stuff has commercial uses by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most of the stuff the US is still export-controlling either has commercial uses or non-US sources. If you look at the indictments, the big one was about someone exporting carbon fibre materials to the China Space Agency. Why is the US trying to stop that? There's some noise about how carbon fibre might be somehow used to enrich uranium. China already has its own enrichment plants, nuclear weapons, and nuclear reactors. They don't need a centrifuge enrichment plant, except maybe for cost reduction. The US tries, for some reason, to slow down China's space program by refusing to export certain space-related items. Not that it makes much difference; the Chinese space program seems to be doing just fine.

    It's hard to think of anything in computing that you can't get outside the US. Nor is there any military computing application that really requires more compute power that you couldn't put together from stuff you could mail order from Taiwan or China.

    Arms control and technology export control are different issues. Arms control is intended to make it harder for people we don't like to get firepower in bulk. It's not about the underlying technology; it's about production. Most of the cases mentioned are pure arms control issues.

    1. Re:Most of thist stuff has commercial uses by PetriBORG · · Score: 1
      It might be that they are really trying to block China from producing better ballistic missile weapons or maybe anti-ballistic weapons? Or maybe its to prevent them from building better bicycles for competition in Tour de France. :-)

      Honestly - I think there could be a number of reasons to block them, but you're probably right in that its just a pissing match.

      Personally I think Babylon 5 is coming! There isn't much any gov. can do about it.

      --
      Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
    2. Re:Most of thist stuff has commercial uses by Detritus · · Score: 1

      The underlying technology is important. China may have some technology, but that is no reason to make it easy for them to upgrade their systems to the current state=of-the-art. Let them spend many decades and billions of dollars like the USA and USSR/Russia. We may not be able to stop them, but we can slow them down.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Most of thist stuff has commercial uses by Renraku · · Score: 0

      The United States doesn't HAVE to export anything. If they decide to not sell to China, then they will not sell to China. Even if its to trip up their space program. Or make billions starve. Or let their reactors melt themselves into the ground.

      Point is, the United States can control its resources and technologies however it wants.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    4. Re:Most of thist stuff has commercial uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In doing so we hurt the world intellectual community (and consequently our own benefits gleaned from that community) far more than we benefit from China being a bit behind the state of the art curve. China outnumbers us by a huge margin, and their population is skewed male (unmated males in large numbers means, reproductively speaking, lots of expendable population). Militarily speaking, if our technology isn't continually developing, we're not going to slow them down enough to matter - remember they also have (statistically) more smart people than we do and they can get education in the US or Europe if their's isn't up to snuff yet. Nor will their education systems remain ineffective (at least in a combat sense) forever - they're smart and they'll figure things out quickly on their own if need be.

    5. Re:Most of thist stuff has commercial uses by mpe · · Score: 1

      Arms control and technology export control are different issues. Arms control is intended to make it harder for people we don't like to get firepower in bulk. It's not about the underlying technology; it's about production. Most of the cases mentioned are pure arms control issues.

      There's also the issue of stopping people you might be planning on attacking soon getting hold of the weapons you might be using so they can't develop countermeasures. e.g. Iran might be far more interested in countering than cloning US weapons. Especially those of types not being used in Iraq.

    6. Re:Most of thist stuff has commercial uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to think of anything in computing that you can't get outside the US.

      Theoretically, you are right. Practically, no. Going from a globally-available proof-of-concept to efficient industrial implementation is difficult, and I bet the Chinese would prefer sparing a several-year investment and get a working industrial process. They are doing this all the time: The last one I can remember is the Airbus deal, under which China buys a bunch of planes in exchange for the construction of Airbus plants in China. So, Airbus is screwed on the long term.

    7. Re:Most of thist stuff has commercial uses by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      They are doing this all the time: The last one I can remember is the Airbus deal, under which China buys a bunch of planes in exchange for the construction of Airbus plants in China. So, Airbus is screwed on the long term.

      It absolutely astounds me how many thousands of companies, worldwide, sell their collective soul to China for, well, really not even a quick buck. They give up their own manufacturing capability, give up their hard-won R&D and production techniques, and end up as hollowed-out marketing fronts so some Chinese manufacturer can use the brand name for a while until they've cheapened it so much that nobody wants it. Then they just do the same thing under a different name.

      Boggles the mind. It's almost like there's some kind of mass psychosis among business leaders around the world.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Most of thist stuff has commercial uses by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think you're way off-base on this one. A heavily-militarized China with hydrogen warheads and the space/missile technology to deliver them is not a stabilizing influence. We're not talking about DVD players, medicines or cellular phones here.

      You've apparently failed to consider the vast expense of military and space development: the American and European taxpayers have spent trillions of hard-earned {insert monetary unit here} and have a right to expect that such technology not be handed over to an inimical totalitarian state "just because they'll have it eventually anyway." In fact, they might not get it anyway, not if they have make a similar expenditure. Remember, China is not our friend. They're not anyone's friends. There's another Cold War developing, only this time it's with an enemy that's far more dangerous, long term, than was the Soviet Empire at its height.

      If you look at the history of war, the one thing you don't do is give your enemy your best weapons. Quite the opposite: you make him divert as many resources into achieving technological parity as possible, thereby rendering him impotent against you for as long as possible. In the meantime, your own investment in R&D keeps you ahead, so that he won't dare attack you. That defines the modern scene when it comes to strategic warfare, and it's not going to change anytime soon. China is pulling ahead, and if we let them get too far ahead we'll probably regret it.

      Unless, of course, we succeed in giving away our entire candy store. We're in the midst of the greatest transfer of wealth and technology from one nation to another ever. China is cheerfully sucking it up, and our stupidity and shortsightedness will inevitably come back to bite us in our collective asses.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:Most of thist stuff has commercial uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor is there any military computing application that really requires more compute power that you couldn't put together from stuff you could mail order from Taiwan or China.

      HAHAHA putting an ICBM up someones ass from across the world takes a little more processor power than Crysis I'm afraid.

  36. The encryption regulations are unconstitutional by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    They were found to be unconstitutional when they were run by the State Department, and they were quickly transferred to the Department of Commerce when Dan Bernstein won his lawsuit over it. These are not the only such export regulations, but these are the ones that prevent your telephone calls, banking transactions, and email from having far more robust protection end to end. This government, and previous ones do not want to permit robust protection from foreign or from their own country's uses. This would otherwise present a great deal of warrant-free and unlimited monitoring, such as that done by the US 'Carnivore' program, which is still in use with a new name, and the kind of backbone monitor over which the EFF is suing the NSA and AT&T.

    Make no mistake, those regulations are unconstitutional. Nothing magically changed except liability when they got moved, and now the specter of 'terrorism' is being raised to prevent their end.

  37. If that were the case... by msauve · · Score: 1

    they would have no need to buy our overpriced crap.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  38. Sure by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just as soon as they stop all the cocaine from coming in.

    --
    Stasis is death. Embrace change.
  39. Hmmmmm by Petra_von_Kant · · Score: 1

    Some of the more bizarre items I have been prevented from buying or even viewing on the US eBay (I am in Australia), have been a pair of Leitz binoculars and a Hewlett Packard stethscope (neither of which were invented by Americans ..... note the word invented).

    Cheers

    "You've got a chart filling a whole wall with interlocking pathways and reactions to shock and the researcher says "If I can just control this one molecule/enzyme/compound I'll stop the whole negative physiologic cascade of post haemorrhagic shock." Yeah, right."

  40. Stop giving the traitors presidential pardons by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That might help.

    Which was the last US government that didn't illegally export arms?

    1. Re:Stop giving the traitors presidential pardons by deraj123 · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

      So...beats me...

  41. No You Are Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If what you say is true, then these people wouldn't have stolen it from the US, and the receivers would just get it somewhere else. Why get caught if its so available elsewhere?

    The fact is the US is the technological leader in the world, and we did invent or perfected most modern technologies today.

    Checkmate. I win.
    Moderators, please mod down parent, and mod this comment up.

    1. Re:No You Are Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have moderated that way if you hadn't ordered me to. Your alpha male over-confidence and attempts at dominance do not work with we introverted geeks online.

    2. Re:No You Are Wrong by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      because windows blows the socks off Linux right?
      and nobody in Europe thought of adding 1 to 1,099,511,627,776
      the iphone was made in america?
      modern chips? laptops? computers? cars?

      Not saying America doesn't produce anything useful, but you cant really restrict Google searches.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    3. Re:No You Are Wrong by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      "Checkmate. I win." No, you do not. It might be for evaluation/comparison against a non-US developed solution to the same problem.

    4. Re:No You Are Wrong by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Not really, in tech the US is nothing special, the US however does have massive financial and military power.

    5. Re:No You Are Wrong by WhiteHorse-The+Origi · · Score: 1

      If, by modern chips, you mean superconducting circuits, then yes! It's almost completely all made in the USA. The majority of new technologies that come out for the consumer market are usually developed in the US first(Japan too now).
      I wouldn't exactly call the iPhone new technology and Linux didn't overtake Winblows until US companies started backing it and making it a viable system for enterprises(Redhat, Sun, etc.). The predominant majority of work in Linux was done by Universities(in the early days).

    6. Re:No You Are Wrong by WhiteHorse-The+Origi · · Score: 1

      I suppose if by "tech" you mean asp.net then yes the US isn't special, but how about robotic Mars landers? Google Earth? Teflon? Velcro? Kevlar?
      I think the rest of the world is so far behind that they think winblows vista on a laptop is cutting edge technology...People in India probably think they're "experts" when they can set up a SAMBA file share and "programmers" when they can write a vbscript that reads from a database and displays it on a web page.

    7. Re:No You Are Wrong by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Well for robotics Japan is way ahead.

      Landers are nothing special, they're been sent out by various countries for decades, America isn't the only country to launch them. Show me an american lander that touched down on venus.

      If you're going to go into history like Teflon, Velcro and Kevlar then Penicillin and Polyester were British inventions.

      You seem to have a very low view of indian experts. Remember all those indian PHDs in your local university? Ya, they're just as capable as any others.

      America is not the center of the world. The Galileo system will be significantly more advanged than the american GPS.
      News flash: america is not best at everything. It's best at some things but the US is not the god of technology.

    8. Re:No You Are Wrong by WhiteHorse-The+Origi · · Score: 1

      Well you're right if you don't take into account the last 10 years of development. Maybe landers are nothing special but landers that go to Mars, land, survey the planet, and return high quality data are special.
      My low view of Indian experts is supported by concrete evidence. I would agree that there are a few Indians who made it, but the majority are just fakes posing as "technological gurus". You might as well use the MIT fake dissertation generator and you'd get the same results. It doesn't matter though because the truth is that Indian fag-programmers now get paid more than American professionals with superior skills and experience. You guys won. We give up. Have the jobs, they're all yours.

      No hard feelings guy. As we say in hockey, "Game on!". I just hope, for your sake, that your Asp.Net site isn't vulnerable to an SQL injection attack because that would make you look very bad. It would also make you look bad if you had code which was vulnerable to a buffer overflow.

    9. Re:No You Are Wrong by WhiteHorse-The+Origi · · Score: 1

      Oh BTW I never saw an Indian PhD at my university. We consider a PhD from India the same as a Bachelor's degree due to obvious reasons.

    10. Re:No You Are Wrong by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      due to obvious reasons.

      The people doing the considering are racist rednecks with a "ghost costume" in their closets?
      Seems the most obvious reason.

    11. Re:No You Are Wrong by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      My low view of Indian experts is supported by concrete evidence.

      such as? keeping in mind that that time you called dell support and talked to someone reading a script for 50 cent an hour isn't concrete evidence of the skill of millions of people.

      I would agree that there are a few Indians who made it, but the majority are just fakes posing as "technological gurus".

      So no different to Americans, Europeans or any other group then.

      You might as well use the MIT fake dissertation generator and you'd get the same results.

      the same as what? You seem to have drifted off here into crazy-on-street-corner ranting where you're forgetting that other people are not intimately familiar with the context of what you're saying.

      It doesn't matter though because the truth is that Indian fag-programmers now get paid more than American professionals with superior skills and experience.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2fGl9587X8
      Isn't racism fun?
      Companies tend to outsource to India because the cost of living is so much lower that they can employ someone with equal or better skill for less money. Paying someone more money when they know less defeats the whole point. Perhaps your skills aren't as hot as you think they are if you got canned for someone living in India who's now being paid even more than you used to be paid.

      You guys won. We give up. Have the jobs, they're all yours.

      That's very nice of you although I feel I must point out that I'm in Europe, not India.

      I just hope, for your sake, that your Asp.Net site isn't vulnerable to an SQL injection attack because that would make you look very bad. It would also make you look bad if you had code which was vulnerable to a buffer overflow.

      Have we broken away from the racism bit yet or do you believe that all code written by Indians is insecure?
      Shockingly bad code comes from every country.
      It doesn't exactly take a genius to sanitise input,output and query results.

    12. Re:No You Are Wrong by WhiteHorse-The+Origi · · Score: 1

      It's not racism, it's Nationalism. Sheesh!

    13. Re:No You Are Wrong by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      as if there's a difference.

    14. Re:No You Are Wrong by WhiteHorse-The+Origi · · Score: 1

      My point is that India tech is a lot of hype, as are a lot of other countries. When you get down to the bare-bones of it, it's usually the US out in the front, leading the way. Obviously, many Americans are not born there so that adds to the dimension.

      People take things like Vietnam adding a fiber optic backbone and sensationalize it to sound like they are some huge technology country. The truth is that Vietnam is just a little po-dunk country with nothing more than cheap labor and a coastline. Another example is when India gets nukes or launches a space craft. We're all really happy for them but the US did the moon-walk about 50 years ago and developed nukes(and used them) more than 63 years ago(not that I'm proud of that).
      So when you say that the US is not the leader in tech, you're just pacifying your own desires to see some other country reach the heights that the US has achieved long ago.

    15. Re:No You Are Wrong by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> it's usually the US out in the front, leading the way.

      LOL whatever.
      Have you ever lived in any other first-world country? I'd bet not from your statements.
      In mostly any country all you hear how that country is leading the world, except in the US they ram it down their kids throats so hard they actually believe it.
      The reality is that most large science/tech advances are international efforts these days.

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. Makes sense, doesn't it? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    When industry and the government do not show people any reason to be proud of their country, why should they be motivated to keep things within their country? Give no other motivation, people will simply sell to the highest bidder.

    Sad, but what to do about it? Elect Obama? I don't think that's much of a solution.

    1. Re:Makes sense, doesn't it? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'd put it more strongly.. electing Obama would be the opposite of a solution!!

      I think a lot of the "pride in American industry" went away when the majority of businesses stopped being run by the people who built them, and started being run by shiny new business-degree graduates. :(

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Makes sense, doesn't it? by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      Sad, but what to do about it? Elect Obama? I don't think that's much of a solution.

      I heard he can save the World...and he can fly. I will say that nothing leaves the shores without an elected official getting their cut.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
  44. Since we cannot stop the illegal by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    export of US technology maybe we should instead license that technology to other nations in exchange of 10% of the profits from that licensed technology?

    Intellectual Property Rights stand in the way of competition and free enterprise. I am sure that many Slashdot readers agree with me that Microsoft is using IP rights to create a Monopoly and sue anyone who dares try to invent the same technology, or else buy them out, or else make things like important API calls as undocumented. Microsoft tried to use SCO to use XENIX/SCO Unix IP to sue IBM and other Linux contributors. Microsoft did not like that Linux became the next big thing and started to become more popular, so Microsoft and SCO did what they could via IP rights to stop Linux.

    If other nations love and need US technology so bad, they ought to be willing to pay to license it in exchange for at least 10% of the profits from that technology and that way they can legally export US technology and still keep 90% of the profits to grow their economy.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Since we cannot stop the illegal by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      One primary rule of contracts is auditability. If you need to see their sales figures to determine how much they should be paying you, why should you trust those figures? How do you find out if they are right? If the answer is you just have to trust them, forget it - find something else to base payment on. Because they have every reason to lie and no reasons not to.

      When measurement is required, you need to be able to check the measurement or it is meaningless. If I hand you a stick and say it is 12 inches long, you need to be able to test it. If you can't and have to trust me and there is money involved, you better figure I'm lying. Not a good way to build a commercial relationship.

    2. Re:Since we cannot stop the illegal by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Well a contract is binding and a public company always has to show their books to the public via their web sites.

      Unless they are another Enron and keep more than one set of books.

      But still if a contract is binding, and the company that licensed the tech is cooking books, they have more than just the 10% profits they owe the IP holder, the government will want to investigate them for fraud as well.

      There are formulas you can use to check to see if an accounting book is cooked or not, and how much profits they made via the ROI and other formulas. If they are lying to the IP holder, they are also lying to their shareholders and the government.

      Make the IP license contract state that a third party lawyer and attorney will routinely check their accounting books to see if the fair share is being paid for licensing the technology, ones that are unbiased and have a reputation of being honest.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Since we cannot stop the illegal by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Er third party lawyer and accountant, sorry I got confused there.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  45. anything truly valuable by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    such as aluminum cylinders for refining uranium hexafluoride, or computer chips hardened against cosmic rays for ICBMs, are thing you don't pick up at newegg and reship to iran. simple as that

    if it is something the average american joe can buy, it is something the average iranian jamal can buy. nothing to be done about it except accept. nonissue, nonstory

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:anything truly valuable by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 1

      if it is something the average american joe can buy, it is something the average iranian jamal can buy. nothing to be done about it except accept. nonissue, nonstory

      Absolutely, positively true. My stroll down Tehran while visiting there taught me one thing. All of the U.S. commercial bans against Iran may stop American companies from selling stuff to them, but it sure doesn't stop a European middle-man from buying in bulk and selling to Iran.

    2. Re:anything truly valuable by quenda · · Score: 1

      such as aluminum cylinders for refining uranium hexafluoride,

      You mean like these ones, that the White House claimed were for Iraq's nukular program?

    3. Re:anything truly valuable by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problems start if you are a US company, building something for the average Joe and the Pentagon would like to buy one. Like some sort of advanced GPU for high performance gaming that could also be used for processing radar images or SIGINT and cryptanalysis. Suddenly, your chip becomes restricted under the jurisdiction of ITAR. So, if you are smart, you incorporate offshore and have your chips made at foreign founderies. You have your R&D subcontracted to firms in India or Russia. Then you can ship your stuff around the world freely. If the DoD wants some for one of its projects, you direct them to these foreign sources.

      If you are feeling real nasty, you can set your government sales office up in Tehran, Havana, or Pyongyang. Or France.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  46. Tech theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silly, why steal it from the US when they can BUY it for less effort/ money directly from China, where a lot of it is originating in the first place?

  47. Huh? by gweihir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is technology in the US not available elsewhere? News to me. In fact most interesting stuff is imported into the US today....

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. The US has seems to thrive in regard to innovation and invention. Just no so much in the improvements field. A country, like Japan for instance, takes what we've made and improves it ten-fold.

  48. GE seed is a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monsanto should be terminated! The government has protected them for far too long, since well before they "deliberately" got into genetically modifying seed. If you don't know why the quotes are used there, ask someone in Anniston, Alabama or anyone likewise affected by them.

    Things are getting worse in Africa as the governments and "charities" are pushing genetically modified crops more every year and the more natural seeds/crops are disappearing. The genetically modified stuff if overly chemically fertilized produce more if they fall withing suitable rainfall or irrigation ranges, if not the more natural stuff would have produced more. Genetically modified seeds without the chemical fertilizers generally produce far less of a crop then the more natural seeds too. Genetically modified plus heavy chemical fertilizers burn out the land faster and even crop rotation isn't effective enough at letting the land recover.

    Of course most of the media articles on this subject will say they need those genetically modified crops to prevent starvation, but if you read enough of them closely enough you will see that the more they use them the more they will have to use them to get anything out of the farmland they have rapidly depleted and that they will have to find more farmland soon. One thing that is helpind slow this to some extent is where they are digging tanks to fish farm in and periodically harvesting the silt etc from the bottom of the tanks and mixing it into the soil.

  49. WTF??? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    The Department of Justice this week said it has placed criminal charges or convictions against more than 255 defendants in the past two fiscal years

    Why is the DoJ talking in fiscal years? Has law become a profit center lately? :-P

    Cheers

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:WTF??? by CompMD · · Score: 1

      The DOJ doesn't operate in fiscal years, the companies (the ones that took losses from industrial espionage and illegal exports) do operate in fiscal years though.

    2. Re:WTF??? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Becasue everything revolves around your organizations fiscal calendar.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  50. Re:Fuck Amerikkkka! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She forgot the most important step: gun confiscation.

  51. so what by Andypcguy · · Score: 1

    What does it matter. All our stuff in made in china anyways and then sold as a knock-off on Ebay.

  52. DOJ has control over haliburton?? by linuzer · · Score: 1

    is haliburton export US technologies? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77754

  53. IED's??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why in the world would someone export improvised explosive device parts to Iran? Don't they have their own? I think it more likely that the DOJ didn't have a case that could stick against someone and "invented" some additional trumped up charges.

    Almost ANYTHING can be made to explode under the right circumstances; battery acid, aspirin, sugar, flour, urine, etc. can all be made into explosive components.

    1. Re:IED's??? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Likely stuff like timers or cell phones. I don't think they have any real shortage of explosives, but the electronics to make the bomb explode when you want it to may be in shorter supply.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  54. End free-trade with non-free countires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can the US stop the illegal export of technology? No, not as long as we have free-trade agreements with non-free countries.

    --edfardos

  55. I am European working for a US comany in Canada by quax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Recently I was forced to sit through an online training with regards to US export controls. The regulations are insane. I came away wondering why any high tech company would want to incorporate in the US with these kind of laws on the book. For instance you could be in violation if you show foreign visitors around your company and they get a fleeting look at a white-board that discusses a strong encryption algorithm. Same thing if you discuss such a "sensitive" technology on the phone with a foreigner. Absolutely and totally nuts.

    1. Re:I am European working for a US comany in Canada by blackcoot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      as someone on the other side (us citizen working on ITAR restricted technologies / programs that _require_ collaborating with foreign nationals), i can vouch for just how massive a pain-in-the-ass ITAR is:

      i can't talk to foreign national colleagues about anything other than the weather.
      i can't deal with foreign vendors.
      i can't buy parts from foreign companies unless we have import licenses on file.
      i can't get support without first having to filter all questions through a company export officer.
      i can't ship equipment for repair if it has to leave the us (novatel, i'm looking at *you*)
      i can't share interface definitions or software process documents without an export license.

      really, the restrictions verge on the absurd, especially when you consider that the papers describing most of the interesting technologies that i work on are published in international journals and freely available, often themselves as a result of gov't funded research.

    2. Re:I am European working for a US comany in Canada by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For instance you could be in violation if you show foreign visitors around your company and they get a fleeting look at a white-board that discusses a strong encryption algorithm.

      Maybe that's just a bad example, but I don't see that as "nuts" at all. If you were writing the requlations, how would you put it? "Foreign visitors can look at sensitive claissified data, but only for n seconds, and only if . . . ?" Isn't it much easier, and more sensible, to say "foreign visitors can not look at such data?"

    3. Re:I am European working for a US comany in Canada by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      really, the restrictions verge on the absurd, especially when you consider that the papers describing most of the interesting technologies that i work on are published in international journals and freely available, often themselves as a result of gov't funded research.

      Well, we're the country that has basically outlawed Estes rockets as potential terrorist weapons. What you're saying comes as no surprise to me.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  56. six-fold increase? by doubletruncation · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm missing something, but why are they comparing the total number of convictions in two years (2008 and 2007) to the total number of convictions in 1 year (2005)? Isn't this more like a 145/40 = 3.6-fold increase in the conviction rate between 2008 and 2005 not a (145 + 100)/40 = 6.1-fold increase?

  57. You can't stop this problem by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is as old as the hills. When I lived in apartheid South Africa in the 1980s the sanctions made it illegal to export various chips to South Africa. They still got there disguised as legal electronic components. The middle men made a killing. Limiting availability might have made USA etc voters happy, but all that really happened was that the South African military industry got a shot in the arm, building its own stuff and selling it to other willing customers. Same deal for the South African nuclear program.

    Nothing much has changed. Smaller stuff like special electronics can be easily hidden inside perfectly legal consumer electronic devices and the $8/hr TSA guy working at the airport will never know the difference. Unless you completely seal borders (??how??) and cut off all tourism etc, you're just doing it for show.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:You can't stop this problem by elp · · Score: 1

      A bit bitter what? He was talking about Apartheid South Africa, old government, not the new one who think anything to do with standards or hard work is some kind of evil neo-colonialist racist plot.
       
      The anti-aircraft gun that went awry was because the the current troops were too lazy/incompetent to set any physical safety stops on the gun so when it suffered a mechanical failure it got to make like it was owned by skynet.

      As for the nuke(s) they still managed to build them which is more than most the 3rd world have managed including Iran 20+ years later.

    2. Re:You can't stop this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An outdated nuke? I bet it still goes bang.

    3. Re:You can't stop this problem by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You're a teacher?

      Jesus, no wonder America's education system is fucked.

    4. Re:You can't stop this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus they were able to sell enriched uranium to Israel in return for weapons sales and technology during the apartheid period when they were supposedly under a strict embargo. I guess helping crush the lives of blacks wasn't a moral issue for such a fine upstanding racist nation like Israel.

    5. Re:You can't stop this problem by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      No kidding, whenever a "teacher" doesn't know the actual capabilities of his students, he ceases to be effective.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    6. Re:You can't stop this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran has had nuclear devices for years, no matter what your government is telling you. So has Syria.

  58. Re:Put up or shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, all you did was give me a virtual blowjob.
    It was nice, but nothing special.

  59. Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you meant 'personified'.

    1. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Perhaps you meant 'personified'.

      No, when he said "...and yet, information hates to be anthromorphized" he was correct.
      Or, at least, he would have been if he'd typed anthropomorphized.

  60. What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ITAR includes things like software and algorithms. So what if I have an idea for some awesome encryption? The government would monitor the export of it. I would know how to code for it. Does the government then control my travel? Can I leave the country?

  61. Double Standards.... by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    Do you think that China/India/Korea/wherever's government would prosecute someone that "stole" intellectual property from the US? Look at the drug industry, a drug patent lasts 20yrs, yet India and China freely copy patented drugs rather than buying them from the US based company. If the drug could help stop the spread of HIV, and would cost quite a bit to purchase, of course those countries are going to violate the patents.

    If I was one of these countries I'd do the same. Why pay for something in time, money, effort, research when you can just get it for free.

    I don't recall seeing morality having a dollar figure.

    1. Re:Double Standards.... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Please actually look up the information on drug patents, it's NOT 20 years. I think it's 14 IF they get a 5 year extension. And thats 14 years from the product approval date. So they need to have a very fast manufacturing ramp up and a limited marketing window.

      They MUST be patented within 60 days of the drug approval even if there isn't a market.

      "I don't recall seeing morality having a dollar figure."
      It always has had an amount it's worth.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  62. Bizarre Math by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Department of Justice this week said it has placed criminal charges or convictions against more than 255 defendants in the past two fiscal years -- 145 in 2008 and 110 in 2007. That 255 number represents more than a six-fold increase from fiscal year 2005, when the DOJ said about 40 individuals or companies were convicted of over 100 criminal violations of export control laws.

    Apparently they went to the "baffle them with bullshit" school of math - if the above is an accurate depiction.

    In 2005, 40 individuals were convicted.
    In 2007 and 2008 combined, 255 were indicted.

    In 2005, enforcement effort was ???
    In 2005, indictment count was ???
    In 2007 and 2008 combined, conviction count was ???
    In 2007 and 2008, enforcement effort was ???

    From the above, we can conclude: very little. The only thing we can say for sure about those numbers is that "six-fold increase" is bullshit. If every single one of those 255 individuals indicted is convicted on at least one count (extremely unlikely), the annual rate is only 127.5, which is only 3x. Even that would only speak of conviction rates, not attempt rates. Enforcement has almost certainly increased given the general increase in federal participation in intellectual property and trade secret law.

    I'm not saying it has not grown, nor whether it should be a greater or lesser focus at the federal level. But the above statement, if accurately portrayed, is disingenuous at best, and deceitful at worst.

    The first step in having a serious discourse about federal policy is to present the issue honestly.

    1. Re:Bizarre Math by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      In fact, if one adds up all of the convictions from 2001 to 2007, and compares that to the figure from 2008, it's clear that the number of convictions has plummeted!

  63. Trade secrets != copyrights or patents by tepples · · Score: 1

    Aah, well then. I expect you'll be manning up within minutes to post your name, address, SSN, and full banking details then.

    Someone brings this up in just about every story about copyrights or patents, and even in this story, you're not the only one. But some people don't understand the difference between trying to restrict obviously private data and trying to restrict data whose author has published it on purpose. Identity details are the former; works of entertainment are more often the latter. Trade secret law and equivalent laws apply to the former but not to the latter.

    1. Re:Trade secrets != copyrights or patents by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Funny

      I agree completely, and I understand the difference. I probably fell for a troll and should never have posted either way, but every time I hear "information wants to be free" used to justify something like industrial espionage or theft of state secrets I tend to just black out. I wake up two minutes later, hopefully under the desk and not in front of a completed post.

  64. Should the US stop the exports? by golodh · · Score: 1
    From the article:

    The illegal exports bound for Iran have involved such items as missile guidance systems, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) components, military aircraft parts, night vision systems and other materials. The illegal exports to China have involved rocket launch data, Space Shuttle technology, missile technology, naval warship data, unmanned aircraft technology, thermal imaging systems, military night vision systems and other materials.

    Apart from things like missile guidance components and IED parts for Iran I really wonder why such exports should be stopped. There is a market for them after all and most of it can be second-sourced.

    1. Re:Should the US stop the exports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the export controls are even more insane. Naerly every computer, car, agricultural machine, etc. contains some parts with US patents. So any foreign company exporting them to a country like Iran faces US sanctions.

  65. Got budget crisis? by dave562 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that the export has been going on for a long time now. Right now what we are seeing that the government needs more revenue. There are hundreds of laws on the books that never get enforced because doing so has been perceived as being too costly. With the Fed facing huge short falls I predict that we are going to see more and more sitautions like this one. Where as the Fed used to turn and look the other way in "good times", they are now going to be taking extra steps to rein in these sorts of operations.

  66. Re:Fuck Amerikkkka! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sorry, that's completely unnecessary. Fascism works perfectly well with an armed populace.. They simply have to be stupid enough to be led around by emotive arguments. For example, the argument "OMG, the other guy wants to take away all your money and guns!!1!" would work perfectly well on you.

  67. That stuff is already "classified" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ITAR cover huge swaths of unclassified civilian technology, imposing serious costs on any high-tech company that operates internationally.

    If national security could make a nation a world power, we would all be speaking Albanian by now.

  68. Yes, but... by Eskarel · · Score: 1
    only if they're more realistic about what they're trying to block.

    Unless you can ensure 100% enforcement, people have to believe that what they're doing is wrong for you to have any hope of stopping it.

    Blocking anything and everything that might have some potential military application just isn't going to happen, the money is too good and people won't believe they're doing something wrong. Add to that the fact that any information freely available here will fundamentally be freely available everywhere because of the internet, and you've really got to be realistic about what you want to block and why.

    Pretty much no one wants to give detailed specs for military hardware/software to our enemies(whoever they may be), but selling carbon fibre to the chinese is going to be hard to stop, and largely impractical since if we don't sell it someone else will.

    Trying to block the export of certain kinds of software is also pretty much pointless particularly as a large number of people not only don't believe that it's dangerous to give it to other people, but also fundamentally disagree with keeeping it to ourselves.

    Like everything else, you've got to be reasonable in what you want so that you can ensure the stuff that's really important gets covered.

  69. New Math by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    What exactly is the point of giving the total cases for 2007 and 2008, then noting that it's six times the number of convictions in the SINGLE YEAR of 2005? Yeah, six times sounds awful. The ACTUAL number is 3 times. Well, it would be if we were comparing apples to apples, but since we're comparing indictments to convictions....

  70. That's strange ! by dvaldenaire · · Score: 1

    I would have bet that the USA **loves** free trade. Restriction on the export ? Good Lord ! Don't tell that to Milton Friedman ! Oh what ? He's already dead ? No wonder.

    Next time i will learn the USA have restriction laws on import two !

    --
    What does it mean, "appended to the end of comments you post"
  71. Re:but...many countries teach this to their kids by kubitus · · Score: 1
    so did my country. I was shaken awake when I went abroad as a teenager. Proud of MY country, I was brought back to reality when I was shown that other people are also not stupid.

    About selling Technology: US company daughters sold in the 60s and 70s HiTech equipment to USSR and Soviet Block by "repairing" older items.

    The US mothers liked it! Especially for their financial profit!

    And the CIA put in their spy devices :-)

  72. Accountability and Ease of Transfer by IEEEMonkey · · Score: 1

    You know I read somewhere recently that a majority (I will look for the story and post a link) people do not think that software use of the unlicensed variety is not stealing. This coupled with the fact that it is so ease to get information from one place to another seems to be part of the problem. How many forums have you been on that have license keys to software or other IP that seem to imply that it is OK to share this information? I believe that we need to start to instil in our children right and wrong and it needs to include that it is not OK to steal software or anything else for that matter. You cannot âoetaste testâ fruit in a grocery store, you cannot download copyrighted documents with impunity, and you cannot give these things away to the general public because it is stealing and it is wrong.

  73. Ebay.-- by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    This probably happens more by chance then intentionally probably. You generally need an import export license to do international business with people in other countries but with the advent of tools like Ebay, people are finding themselves sending things overseas without the benefit of a license or the knowledge of any restrictions.

    This in itself isn't bad, it just means that people are ignorant of the laws surrounding what they are dealing with. It doesn't make sense that you can sell or give you neighbor something buy not a guy in Mexico or Kenya or some south African country. I know a guy who might have been one of those stats within the last two years if he didn't follow my advice. He sells farm equipment and listed something that was ordered but declined on purchase (the original buyer had a problem coming up with the money). It was a sprayer but the pump connected to it was for come reason restricted on exports. I think it has something to do with the pressures and the chemical rating or something alone those lines- they don't really tell you why.

    Anyways, I told him he should ask the US customs department before shipping it to south Africa. Sure enough, that item was restricted because of the pump. We called the manufacturer and they said a different pump was used in exports and he ordered one. We swapped it out and sent it and as far as I know, everyone was happy. I guess a lot of times, stuff gets lost at the border in African countries but we had a US government number on it for the approval for export and the guy received it without problem.

    The point is that the internet makes it easy for people with no specific training to the laws and the restrictions to do busyness in other countries. Some of this can put people in violation of laws that they never knew existed.

  74. You forgot to mention that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot to mention that ITAR is destroying our space industry. Because of it, other countries developed the technology needed and are now taking business from us. It's getting worse every year. I didn't see it mentioned in you link.

  75. Don't distribute that technology! by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    The Brotherhood of Steel needs a monopoly on it to restore order to the wastelands!

    Wait, what's going on? I lost track of time. Do you guys know what day it is?

  76. Re:What about the net import in technical expertis by ignavus · · Score: 1

    Look at it this way. Your country doesn't have to maintain expensive scientific research centres. You have outsourced your research to America, and made them pick up the tab.

    Then you can steal the results back.

    You are getting the good end of the deal.

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
  77. Mutual sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US wants world to invest money into it's economy and buy it's products, respects it's IP, and implement patent laws that mirror the US system. On the other side, they don't want to share technology with emerging countries. They don't allow foreign companies to buy big domestic ones. They want the transfer to be just one way, so that US can keep ahead of everyone, both in military and economic power.

    Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle. Globalisation and outsorcing affected everyone, and with new economic power in the east there will be stiff competition (especially as financial market meltdown dried dollar input from oil-exporting countries and China, that practically kept western economies from already falling into recession).

    And, yeah, blame it on Iran this time.

  78. Totally possible by ZiggyStardust1984 · · Score: 1

    Just do it like oracle... ask all your clients to assert they are not from Iran, Cuba, North Korea or in any way related to terrorism. If they say they don't, go ahead and sell.

  79. IMHO, by arstchnca · · Score: 1

    it is silly that it has occurred to no one that perhaps this is simply a result of 'technology' playing an increasingly significant role in the workings of the world. But no, it's probably that theft is rising. Of course. It always is.

    --
    -- arstchnca
    --
  80. This is a biggie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was republicans during reagan's time that illegally sold our nuke info to Turkey AND pakistan. No, Pakistan did NOT develop it on their own. And what happen to those traitors? Nothing. These ppl did not even do it as part of our policy. It was illegally acquired and then sold outside of the norm. Interestingly, reagan did nothing about it when he found out making him as much a traitor as those men. The fact that nothing happened to them, has shown the way for many businesses to make their buck.

  81. More than 255? by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 1

    Doesn't the DoJ know exactly how man?

    Perhaps they were trying to save precious disk space by recording the number of cases in a byte-wide field and the database is now suffering from an overflow exception?

    --
    Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
    Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
  82. John Keels by jkeelsnc · · Score: 1

    Well now this is not a new occurence. For decades now technology that was originally invented by Americans winds up being implemented by foreign companies. Really, it is our OWN fault. If we had companies that were actually willing and interested in investing in "risky" technologies we would be OK. A good example is when the transistor was invented in the 50's. The dumb heads that ran RCA weren't interested so the technology was taken to Japan. For that matter look at Xerox. They could've owned the personal computer industry. But the conservative idiots in NY that run the company were not interested in what the PARC lab in CA was doing. Now, in that case Apple picked up the technology for a graphical user interface. If we want to stop this export of technology then we have to stop having companies that shun promising technologies because their corporate thinking prevents the development of radical new technologies. Instead, low risk is the name of the game and lining one's pockets with a quick buck. Without risk you don't get anywhere. There have been examples of risk taking in the US. Getting to the moon in the 60's comes to mind. However, other examples of corporate stodginess and group think have killed innovation in American business as well. Look at detroit. Only now did they start really building some good cars before they are almost completely bankrupt. No, instead the mismanagement and bean counting techniques in Detroit killed the American car business. :)

  83. "Dual-use technology" is almost anything by (Score.5,+Interestin · · Score: 1

    A big problem with this is that the definition of "dual-use technologies" covers almost anything more complex than an electric blanket. Some years ago as part of a due diligence exercise I had to perform a check against the export-control lists and used a Dell flyer that had arrived that day as a test case. Almost every single product on this generic Dell sales brochure violated at least one and sometimes several restrictions in the export control lists: chips with more than 208 pins, graphics performance above some early-90s level, software that performed network routing, the number of pitfalls is endless. So waving your hands and making a fuss about "illegal technology exports" sounds pretty scary until you realise they're talking about things like a 486 laptop with a Trio64 video card running Slackware 3.1.

  84. Re:What about the net import in technical expertis by jackbird · · Score: 1

    It's better than that. We're phasing out the feeding and education of own own citizens as well. Cha-ching!

  85. nope by kingsteve612 · · Score: 0

    did they stop illegal import of drugs? nope did they stop people from downloading/pirating media? nope what makes anyone think they can stop this?

  86. You are correct. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I should have put it more strongly: "When industry and government have both been engaged in selling out their country, why should individuals be motivated to do differently?"

    1. Re:You are correct. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Heh, that's about right... perhaps sometimes even "When industry and government have conspired in selling out their country..."

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  87. Re: we at least need to lift a finger to try by NickGnome · · Score: 1

    The trouble is that the US government got into an irrational "boost exports", "multiculturalism" kick. The US government and business executives are still making concessions on top of concessions to thugs like the Red Chinese, in hopes that one day they will increase freedom and open up to enough legal exports from the USA to make some profits. Nixon and every US president since has bent over backwards for them. But, instead of opening up, the Red Chinese subborned those US executives into helping violate people's rights, and planted over 3,000 front businesses for their spying and lobbying in the USA. (Fortunately, there have also been a few deals like the Lenovo buy-out from Ill-Begotten Monstrosities, and source-code grabs from trash producer M$.)

  88. Our biggest export blunder at the time was... by Almost-Retired · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Allowing Hitachi America to get away with exporting a multiaxis milling machine complete with the software to drive it. Up till then, the screws on russian subs were so noisy, and each sub had their own unique noise signature that our hydrophone listening devices scattered about the ocean could identify what sub was backing out of the docks on the russian north coast by the time it had moved 100 yards. This was in the height of the cold war. Our subs OTOH could move at classified speeds underwater so quietly that if their sonars didn't catch the ping, they never knew we were within miles, let alone the few yards away that we actually were. In one instance, we caught one of theirs off the Carolina coast, and he found he was 'made' so he went to the bottom to wait us out. But we had air recyclers they didn't. When he tried to blow the tanks and surface for air, he found our sub sitting on him. I don't think he heard it when the hulls made contact & we kept silent. Held him down for another bit of time just to make the point, then beat him to the surface. That sub captain probably went home to a firing squad because he allowed that to happen.

    Within a year or two of that machines exportation by Hitachi America, the russian subs suddenly started getting as quiet as ours. So our hydrophones became worthless as we couldn't hear them anymore. But by then, the cold war was winding down. And that was just one of the reasons we won that war.

    Hitachi? Got a slap on the wrist, where the actual act should have been treason charges & a trip to ACE Hardware for some new rope.

    That seemed to take the heart out of any reason to keep Phil Zimmerman jailed, so he was released after a while, I suspect with instructions to add a back door to PGP, which is the reason I personally have never used a newer than 2.6.2 release. And haven't used that in years as I no longer care what my government thinks of me since its so plain they think I'm just another of the sheeple. All they have to do is wait for me to fall over (74 and diabetic now) and they won't be out a dime.

    It all boils down to its not being who you know, its who you blow. Very abundantly proven by the facts. Sigh...

    --
    Cheers, Gene

    1. Re:Our biggest export blunder at the time was... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Allowing Hitachi America to get away with exporting a multiaxis milling machine complete with the software to drive it.

      Yeah, that shocked me at the time. Still, the real danger of that sale is less a matter of the Russians having it, but that everyone else has it now. Mainly because Russian security pretty much disappeared after the Soviet Union collapsed. That applies across the board: technologies they stole from others, or developed internally, have ended up on the open market.

      Not that we're much better, when you get right down to it. Nowadays, we're selling ourselves off piecemeal. Heck, we're not even selling it: we're just giving everything away.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Our biggest export blunder at the time was... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And he had to reduce the max key length.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  89. Here's a thought by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Don't outlaw the export of technology at all. If something is so dangerous that some subset of irresponsible people shouldn't have access to it, then outlaw manufacturing it in the first place!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Here's a thought by kimvette · · Score: 1

      The problem with the law is that if something has dual purpose, or can be modified to be dual purpose, then it cannot be exported even to some countries with normalized relations. Devices as innocuous as Tivo PVRs could be considered dual purpose, and definitely security DVRs which feature P/T/Z camera support are restricted, because it is conceivable that the P/T/Z support could be modified to control a weapons system rather than just a camera (oh sure, it'd be directing a camera mount, since the mount would be a missile ;)). So, security equipment, even just monitoring equipment, is often considered munitions based on dual-purpose assessments.

      And cellphones? Walkie-talkies? They can be used to remotely detonate explosives. Ergo, could be construed to be munitions.

      Flashlights? 6-cell Mag-lites are nothing more than power packs for detonators. They could be construed by some fascists to be dual-purpose if they want to be sticklers, and classify mag-lite flash lights as munitions.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  90. Anything that even touches 'something' military by captaincinders · · Score: 1

    The rules are interpreted in such as way that anything can be interpreted as violating ITAR and its cousin TAA. I have been told that a bolt size is subject to TAA....because the bolt holds down a battery charger......that charges a battery.....that fits onto a military radio. I have alos been involved in a design of a vehicle, where we approached an American engine manufacturer. They wanted us to sign in blood that the ingine would not be used in a vehicle that had any military application whatsoever. We found out later that this was because they had developed an engine for worldwide export, and some vehicle manufacturer had put it into a military truck. The engine was now deemed to be subjetct to ITAR and their export sales plummeted to zero. With rules like these it is no surprise that people break them. I thought the British held the crown on stupid regulations applied stupidly, but the Americans have us beat.

  91. Re:What about the net import in technical expertis by Asmor · · Score: 1

    Oh, don't worry! Our xenophobic government and populace has been going through pains to encourage students not to come to the US, e.g. making visas more difficult to obtain.

    It's only fair, after all.

  92. warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    twitter sockpuppet and general annoying troll. Please mod accordingly.

  93. Re:Accountability and Ease of Transfer by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

    You cannot "taste test" fruit in a grocery store, you cannot download copyrighted documents with impunity, and you cannot give these things away to the general public because it is stealing and it is wrong.

    Don't be a jackass. If you aren't going to bother addressing the obvious differences between copyright infringement and petty theft, then you don't have any business expressing your ignorant opinion on the subject.

  94. Re:Accountability and Ease of Transfer by IEEEMonkey · · Score: 1

    Don't be a jackass. If you aren't going to bother addressing the obvious differences between copyright infringement and petty theft, then you don't have any business expressing your ignorant opinion on the subject.

    The point is, since you are incapable of figuring it out yourself, that accountability has completely gone out the window. Whether I am a jackass or not has nothing to do with my comparison of petty theft to anything. I am a jackass because I am a jackass, it is unrelated to the topic. The obvious similarity is that both are wrong and the fact that you feel that there are different levels of wrong demonstrates how right I am. Rest assured that my opinion is anything but ignorant.