Re: [amsat-bb] Who Let THIS Info Out?
I made "numerous legal threats"? I don't think so.
Given what a tremendous whopper that one is, I can't attach any credibility to the rest of your statement, except for one thing:
It is true that Michelle and Patrick, and for that matter I, feel that AMSAT's NDAs prevent it from being able to achieve a workable ITAR strategy.
You simply can't use the ITAR 120.11 and EAR 734.7 carve-outs AND have secret or proprietary portions of any technology listed under the United States Munitions List. Once there is secret or proprietary technology, all of the nasty restrictions of ITAR are unavoidable.
It is possible to deal with secrets outside of the technology, such as launch schedules, and it is possible to compartmentalize some ITAR-protected information, for example technology specific to the launch which is not necessary for broader cooperations such as designing and constructing a satellite.
Thus it is necessary for AMSAT to examine all existing NDAs, separate itself from ones that are no longer necessary, and carefully compartmentalize any which need to stand for the moment. Michelle and Patrick attempted to initiate this process, but have been blocked.
Thanks
Bruce
Man I was hoping you'd deny this one.
July 19, 2019 @bruceperens "Or, Mark, would you like to discuss this issue before a fair legal expert? Courts have judges whose job it is to enforce by-laws of corporations. I think you should back down and admit fault before you are in a lot more hot water".
I can post screenshots if you'd like, but the thread doesn't get much better from there.
-Dave, KG5CCI
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:32 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
I made "numerous legal threats"? I don't think so.
Given what a tremendous whopper that one is, I can't attach any credibility to the rest of your statement, except for one thing:
It is true that Michelle and Patrick, and for that matter I, feel that AMSAT's NDAs prevent it from being able to achieve a workable ITAR strategy.
You simply can't use the ITAR 120.11 and EAR 734.7 carve-outs AND have secret or proprietary portions of any technology listed under the United States Munitions List. Once there is secret or proprietary technology, all of the nasty restrictions of ITAR are unavoidable.
It is possible to deal with secrets outside of the technology, such as launch schedules, and it is possible to compartmentalize some ITAR-protected information, for example technology specific to the launch which is not necessary for broader cooperations such as designing and constructing a satellite.
Thus it is necessary for AMSAT to examine all existing NDAs, separate itself from ones that are no longer necessary, and carefully compartmentalize any which need to stand for the moment. Michelle and Patrick attempted to initiate this process, but have been blocked.
Thanks
Bruce
I haven't been deleting tweets, so send the URLs. Screenshots are easy to fake.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020, 3:36 PM David Swanson via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Man I was hoping you'd deny this one.
July 19, 2019 @bruceperens "Or, Mark, would you like to discuss this issue before a fair legal expert? Courts have judges whose job it is to enforce by-laws of corporations. I think you should back down and admit fault before you are in a lot more hot water".
I can post screenshots if you'd like, but the thread doesn't get much better from there.
-Dave, KG5CCI
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:32 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
I made "numerous legal threats"? I don't think so.
Given what a tremendous whopper that one is, I can't attach any credibility to the rest of your statement, except for one thing:
It is true that Michelle and Patrick, and for that matter I, feel that AMSAT's NDAs prevent it from being able to achieve a workable ITAR
strategy.
You simply can't use the ITAR 120.11 and EAR 734.7 carve-outs AND have secret or proprietary portions of any technology listed under the United States Munitions List. Once there is secret or proprietary technology,
all
of the nasty restrictions of ITAR are unavoidable.
It is possible to deal with secrets outside of the technology, such as launch schedules, and it is possible to compartmentalize some ITAR-protected information, for example technology specific to the launch which is not necessary for broader cooperations such as designing and constructing a satellite.
Thus it is necessary for AMSAT to examine all existing NDAs, separate itself from ones that are no longer necessary, and carefully compartmentalize any which need to stand for the moment. Michelle and Patrick attempted to initiate this process, but have been blocked.
Thanks
Bruce
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
I can't post a link Bruce, you've blocked me on twitter. Just like Michelle blocked me last year and swears she didn't, or it must have been a twitter bug or something. Now I'm being accused of faking screenshots. When it comes to you and your party up is down, left is right, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Keep repeating your lies enough, and the plebes will fall in line. Orwell would be so proud.
-Dave, KG5CCI
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 5:42 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
I haven't been deleting tweets, so send the URLs. Screenshots are easy to fake.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020, 3:36 PM David Swanson via AMSAT-BB < amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
Man I was hoping you'd deny this one.
July 19, 2019 @bruceperens "Or, Mark, would you like to discuss this issue before a fair legal expert? Courts have judges whose job it is to enforce by-laws of corporations. I think you should back down and admit fault before you are in a lot more hot water".
I can post screenshots if you'd like, but the thread doesn't get much better from there.
-Dave, KG5CCI
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:32 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
I made "numerous legal threats"? I don't think so.
Given what a tremendous whopper that one is, I can't attach any credibility to the rest of your statement, except for one thing:
It is true that Michelle and Patrick, and for that matter I, feel that AMSAT's NDAs prevent it from being able to achieve a workable ITAR
strategy.
You simply can't use the ITAR 120.11 and EAR 734.7 carve-outs AND have secret or proprietary portions of any technology listed under the United States Munitions List. Once there is secret or proprietary technology,
all
of the nasty restrictions of ITAR are unavoidable.
It is possible to deal with secrets outside of the technology, such as launch schedules, and it is possible to compartmentalize some ITAR-protected information, for example technology specific to the
launch
which is not necessary for broader cooperations such as designing and constructing a satellite.
Thus it is necessary for AMSAT to examine all existing NDAs, separate itself from ones that are no longer necessary, and carefully compartmentalize any which need to stand for the moment. Michelle and Patrick attempted to initiate this process, but have been blocked.
Thanks
Bruce
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Since we've also just established you are willing to lie repeatedly even in the face of evidence to the contrary, to address ITAR, you're simply wrong. The last organization that tried your carve out (DefDist, who you referenced btw) ended up in Prison. Sure, he 'beat' the US State Department on his 1 little point, but 30+ State Attorney generals then went after him, and trumped up charges completely unrelated to his ITAR fight, came out of left field and got him. There is no "winning" when you make something political - one way or another city hall will always get even. Since I'm sure you'll just dig in with your typical "NUH UH" BS if you so righteously believe you can get away with open sourcing everything, then why not take ORI there and prove AMSAT wrong.... You of course won't, because you wouldn't be able to walk away after 2 years and claim success while never seeing something thru. You'd rather goad AMSAT into picking the fight, claim how you 'invented' something and then move on to your next pot to stir while AMSAT is left holding the bag.
In case this last lie wasn't enough, how about your claim that ARISS walked away? Lie. How about the lie that people have been blocked from seeing the BoD minutes? Lie. How about the lie about Brennen being pressured this year? I mean seriously dude, do you actually know how to tell the truth? So why in the world would we trust anything you have to say about ITAR?
-Dave, KG5CCI
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:32 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
I made "numerous legal threats"? I don't think so.
Given what a tremendous whopper that one is, I can't attach any credibility to the rest of your statement, except for one thing:
It is true that Michelle and Patrick, and for that matter I, feel that AMSAT's NDAs prevent it from being able to achieve a workable ITAR strategy.
You simply can't use the ITAR 120.11 and EAR 734.7 carve-outs AND have secret or proprietary portions of any technology listed under the United States Munitions List. Once there is secret or proprietary technology, all of the nasty restrictions of ITAR are unavoidable.
It is possible to deal with secrets outside of the technology, such as launch schedules, and it is possible to compartmentalize some ITAR-protected information, for example technology specific to the launch which is not necessary for broader cooperations such as designing and constructing a satellite.
Thus it is necessary for AMSAT to examine all existing NDAs, separate itself from ones that are no longer necessary, and carefully compartmentalize any which need to stand for the moment. Michelle and Patrick attempted to initiate this process, but have been blocked.
Thanks
Bruce
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020, 3:42 PM David Swanson via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Sure, he 'beat' the US State Department on his 1 little point, but 30+ State Attorney generals then went after him, and trumped up charges completely unrelated to his ITAR fight, came out of left field and got him.
So let's get this straight. Cody Wilson was sentenced to 7 years probation, not prison, after he pleaded guilty to having sex with an underage girl. There was plea-bargaining involved. However, it is really far from a sure thing that this has anything to do with the defense distributed case.
To extend your argument, you are arguing that we should not use the explicit carve-outs in ITAR and EAR because a state, not even the federal government, might thus be inspired to bring specious sexual assault charges against AMSAT.
I think it's fair to say this is out of left field conspiracy theorism rather than any sort of legal strategy.
how about your claim that ARISS walked away?
I wrote that I was going to assume they walked off until told otherwise. This falls pretty far short of a "claim". Frank immediately corrected me and I accepted his correction quite publicly.
How about the lie about Brennen being pressured this year?
You mean "Brennan". His reply was: "I have made decisions on a number of issues that warranted discussion both before and after the fact, and I believe I've made at least one call with which every candidate would have rather me made another by now. These discussions, even when ending in disagreement, have universally been conducted with professionalism and in the absence of the vigor that one may detect here."
I also accepted Brennan's report quite publicly.
In both cases I said something a little inflammatory in order to draw out the people involved to make their own reports. It worked in both cases. When they made those reports, I was quick to publicly show my acceptance and support of them. This is a strategy I learned in rhetorics class. Yes, it's manipulative. No, its purpose is not to propagate a lie.
Thanks
Bruce
participants (2)
-
Bruce Perens -
David Swanson