Slashdot Mirror
NASA Boss Accused of Breaking Arms Trade Laws
ananyo writes "The head of NASA Ames Research Center may have fallen victim to restrictive arms regulations — just as a US government report recommends changing them to help the space industry. Simon 'Pete' Worden, who recently announced that Mars exploration would be done by private companies, has been accused of giving foreign citizens access to information that falls under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). ITAR has hampered U.S. firms seeking to export satellite technology. The allegations against Worden come just as the new report recommends moving oversight of many commercial satellites and related activities from the State department to the Commerce department, and some fear they could provide lawmakers with reasons to not ease export controls."
Laws written by the government don't apply to the government. This is just a simple misunderstanding (by the people caught NASA breaking the law).
"NASA Boss Accused of Breaking Arms"
Das parts of NASA's loss of funds. You gots to break legs if youse wants to makes moneys.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
ITAR serves an important purpose by stating what technologies/goods should not be given to other countries because they comprise munitions or technologies related to them. But the trick is that controlling information is a problematic thing, especially when you get into esoteric aspects of technology. It gets even worse with "dual-use" technologies. A while back, Toshiba fell afoul of similar rules when they shared technology they use in their washing machines with a company in the USSR. Unfortunately, that same technology is also used to make quieter screws (propellers, for you land-loving sorts) for ships, and thus, submarines. At one point, the 128-bit encryption-capable version of Internet Explorer was equally prohibited for export.
The rules also seem totally nuts when you see how they play out. You can discuss things with US Citizens, but only if you're in the US. Unless you're abroad, but in a place the US controls. But not if you're in the US and there's a person here on a visa nearby.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Before you blame post-9/11 security paranoia, this law was made to cover spacecraft in good ol' 1998. Dumb government bureaucracy can happen even in peaceful, profitable times.
No it wasn't. ITAR was enacted in 1976, in the midst of the Cold War, and it's always included far more than just anything related to spacecraft. It was originally meant to restrict a lot of different technologies, and has since been expanded to even cover software and algorithms of certain sorts. It covers both technology and goods, and the list of what is covered is enough to make you want to put a gun in your mouth and "export" your brains all over the wall. It's a truly nightmarish thing to comply with in today's world, if you handle any interesting technology development whatsoever.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Those regulations hapmper everybody. The folks in the gun lobby will tell you that they are a backdoor attempt at gun control and they make a good case (if you're a firearms accessories and parts merchant, you literally can't drop a simple magazine spring in a box and mail it abroad without mounds of expensive paperwork) until you realize that it screws up *everybody*. Anything can be defined as "arms" if you're willing to stretch the term enough to server your particular agenda and, under ITAR, it's been stretched to a ridiculous degree, already. The anecdotes in the article (yes, I read it, so flog me) are just the tip of the iceberg.
Same can be said about stealth fighters, ICBMs, and anything else developed with tax payer dollars. Not 100% sure all of that information should be publicly available however.
Why not? When a government has exclusive right to military technology, they in effect have an exclusive right to unlimited power, which is a gross violation of the Constitutional principle of liberty.
Note that the Second Amendment provides no exclusions regarding what arms the citizens are allowed to own and carry - also note that the reason the Second Amendment exists is to allow the citizenry to defend ourselves not from each other, but from a tyrannical, oppressive government.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Toshiba sold four 5-axis milling machines and four 4-xis milling machines to the USSR. In its export application, Toshiba Machine falsely described the machinery as two-axis machine tools. Anything over two-axis violates COCOM.
Read that again: Toshiba didn't innocently stumble into the export of a dual-use machine that might or might not have been approved depending on bureaucratic review whims, they flat out lied in order to export machines which were explicitly and unconditionally prohibited.
Not to mention the fact that what does or doesn't fall under the ITAR umbrella is open to interpretation and changes almost daily. Shit, I remember when Xenix implementations that had the crypt() routine in libc.a were not allowed to leave the country.
working in the aerospace field, I have to deal with ITAR related issues all the time. It's is really burdensome for the industry outside the US and, in the end, mostly hurting the US Industry. Having such regulation within the NATO countries is quite silly if you ask me and it is the best incentive for those nations to develop their own industry. In the end we always get parts or expertise outside of the US if we have a choice.
But don't think the grass is greener everywhere. Other countries have similar export regulations that aren't any less a PITA. I quickly think problems we have with BAFA in Germany, although those issues are nowhere as complicated as those create by ITAR.
On many project requirements, you find on top of the list "No ITAR regulated parts/software/whatever"... and this trend is expending as people learn to work without new providers outside of the US and these providers gain the required expertise. Hell! Even some US projects now aim for systems without any ITAR regulated components! Your guess on the impact of such a trend on the US industry is just as good as mine.
Apparently, satellite stands are covered by ITAR. Basically, we are talking about an aluminum table to hold up the satellite when people are working on it..
Here is an old, but good article,
http://www.economist.com/node/11965352
Note that the Second Amendment provides no exclusions regarding what arms the citizens are allowed to own and carry
I'm sorry, I'm all for second amendment rights, but I don't think the framers of the constitution could possibly conceive weapons of mass destruction like nukes and biological weapons. I for one don't want you or anyone you know owning such weapons, ICBMs, ballistic missiles, etc.
Slow approvals yes, but why would I want to arm somone who had expressed unfriendly intentions
Because when the definition of "arms" is sufficiently broad, or when the people in charge are unqualified to decide what should and should not be covered, these regulations are classic examples of government gone berserk.
As long as the bad guys can buy the same defense-rated coffee pot or whatever from China, then all we've done is shoot ourselves in the foot. (Oh, and by restricting free trade, we're also giving the bad guys every incentive in the world to develop their own independent production capacity for such items.)
Regulations like ITAR should only cover things like uranium centrifuges that literally have no legitimate civilian use. Classifying everything invented since 1983 as a munition or dual-use item is demonstrably counterproductive.
Note that the Second Amendment provides no exclusions regarding what arms the citizens are allowed to own and carry
The First Amendment provides no exceptions of any kind to free speech, but nevertheless we accept that there are reasonable limits that can be placed on certain things and then we just spend the rest of time arguing about what is "reasonable".
Screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, libel and slander, revealing military secrets, etc. These are considered reasonable restrictions on the right of free speech.
Same with the 2nd Amendment. There may be a lot more argument over where 'reasonable' is, and I think it's too restrictive right now, but the idea that it guarantees the right to private armies and nuclear stockpiles is a non-starter, sorry.
P.S. For defending ourselves from an oppressive government, it's going to be less about the quality of hardware citizens possess at the beginning (though it helps if guns are plentiful, and they are, and AR-15s are legal and can be converted to full-auto easily), but rather how much we can steal or have stolen by defecting military members. And also not about hardware in general or armies but guerrilla tactics.
The enemies of Democracy are
Yes, all Infrared imaging systems, or part thereof, are protected under ITAR. Nobody (maybe some stlll do) in Europe buys IR detector in the US anymore for this reasons. That's one place where the German, French and Israeli industries gained a lot because of ITAR.