I just read the article about ITAR in the Jan/Feb 2009 AMSAT Journal. I have to say that the article didn't help me understand ITAR at all. It seems to have skipped the first several steps in the explanation.
For example, what criteria are used to judge that a device has dual use as a munition? It is not at all obvious to my feeble mind how a 23 GHz amplifier or IHU-3 (computer) can be judged to have dual use as a munition.
What criteria does ITAR law use to EXCLUDE devices that have obvious dual uses as munitions? For example, GSM cell phones have been used to remotely control explosive devices that killed thousands of U.S. servicemen. Are they not regulated because they are too ubiquitous to control?
Wayne Estes W9AE Oakland, Oregon, USA, CN83ik
Hi Wayne,
The State Department defines what is considered a "munition" in the ITAR regulations. See: http://pmddtc.state.gov/
The criteria is obviously determined by the State Department with direction from the Congress. The article just tries to describe some examples without trying to justify or explain why something is or isn't a munition.
The main point of the article is that any communications satellite, whether it is an Amateur, a university or a commercial satellite is considered by ITAR to be a munition controlled by ITAR export regulations. That's a fact and to understand the criteria is to understand the thinking of the authors of the regulation (State Department and the Congress), which I can't do.
To be sure, export regulations can be complicated and at times appear to us as being irrational. But the fact remains, ITAR is an export law that we at AMSAT have to comply with.
Regards...Bil - N6GHz
Wayne Estes wrote:
I just read the article about ITAR in the Jan/Feb 2009 AMSAT Journal. I have to say that the article didn't help me understand ITAR at all. It seems to have skipped the first several steps in the explanation.
For example, what criteria are used to judge that a device has dual use as a munition? It is not at all obvious to my feeble mind how a 23 GHz amplifier or IHU-3 (computer) can be judged to have dual use as a munition.
What criteria does ITAR law use to EXCLUDE devices that have obvious dual uses as munitions? For example, GSM cell phones have been used to remotely control explosive devices that killed thousands of U.S. servicemen. Are they not regulated because they are too ubiquitous to control?
Wayne Estes W9AE Oakland, Oregon, USA, CN83ik _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
One purpose of ITAR is preventing technological advances useful to our military (including satellites) from getting into enemy hands. Security people always want regulations to be as broad as possible. Even if 99% of the technology is available elsewhere they want it examined in order to catch the 1% that could be a problem.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Ress" [email protected] To: "Wayne Estes" [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 22:03 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Understanding ITAR
Hi Wayne,
The State Department defines what is considered a "munition" in the ITAR regulations. See: http://pmddtc.state.gov/
The criteria is obviously determined by the State Department with direction from the Congress. The article just tries to describe some examples without trying to justify or explain why something is or isn't a munition.
The main point of the article is that any communications satellite, whether it is an Amateur, a university or a commercial satellite is considered by ITAR to be a munition controlled by ITAR export regulations. That's a fact and to understand the criteria is to understand the thinking of the authors of the regulation (State Department and the Congress), which I can't do.
To be sure, export regulations can be complicated and at times appear to us as being irrational. But the fact remains, ITAR is an export law that we at AMSAT have to comply with.
Regards...Bil - N6GHz
Wayne Estes wrote:
I just read the article about ITAR in the Jan/Feb 2009 AMSAT Journal. I have to say that the article didn't help me understand ITAR at all. It seems to have skipped the first several steps in the explanation.
For example, what criteria are used to judge that a device has dual use as a munition? It is not at all obvious to my feeble mind how a 23 GHz amplifier or IHU-3 (computer) can be judged to have dual use as a munition.
What criteria does ITAR law use to EXCLUDE devices that have obvious dual uses as munitions? For example, GSM cell phones have been used to remotely control explosive devices that killed thousands of U.S. servicemen. Are they not regulated because they are too ubiquitous to control?
Wayne Estes W9AE Oakland, Oregon, USA, CN83ik _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
I want everyone seeing this to read a book. Little Brother by Cory Doctorow is a book aimed at late teens to young adults. This is irrelevant. It is a must read for anyone who doesn't understand the nature of the problems. It is a DEVASTATING treatment of several current event topics, including anti-terrorism approaches, internet privacy, and more.
I find one of the best sections of the book to be its treatment of "false positives". The exact same mathematics applies to this ITAR export prevention problem. The cost of dealing with ITAR is so high in comparison to catching the real events that it should be the poster child for stupidity of the entire approach to security. It has, in my opinion, NOT been worth the cost and I believe in safeguarding those things which are in the interests of U.S. security. I am not a believer in stupidity. I do not subscribe to civil disobedience on this topic because of the cost to my family and friends and it has cost me the ability to talk to my friends for YEARS. U.S. "enemies" have developed on their own or done effective espionage to get all of the technology they need. This has been a truly tragic episode for U.S. space corporations and a great boon to those nations who aspire to be space faring nations rather than be trapped by we and our "friends" to the earth's surface.
A spacecraft, or anything associated with the launch of spacecraft, including ground systems (including amateur radio equipment) is DEFINED to be an ITAR covered item. No one says it is a munition as in a gun. It is DEFINED to be an ITAR covered item. Discussion of it with foreign nationals by U.S. citizens is a "deemed export" and requires an export license AND THEN, the most insidious of all, a technology assistance agreement. The technology assistance agreement in most cases must contain language that the foreign entity (person, group, etc.) must agree to be bound by U.S. law even if they are NEVER enter U.S. I believe now that AMSAT-NA is going to be allowed to talk to our friends. I believe in the end it will not be an onerous set of restrictions. But I am SO glad I am not attempting to sell a satellite or ground equipment as a U.S. person (individual, corporation, green card holder) to a foreign national. The pucker factor is so high because the cost of a mistake is punitive, that you simply cannot afford casual conversations much less technical discussions without an army of lawyers and minders present.
I wish I could find the words to impart the depth of my despair on what this has meant to everyone involved in space in the U.S. from lowly amateur radio operators trying to build satellites to major U.S. corporations. It has done NOTHING effective in my opinion but make lots of lawyers wealthier and insure the long term survival of bureaucrats.
Bob
The absurdity of it all, is that a large percentage of science, math, technical and engineering students in all USA colleges and Universities are foreign nationals. So we are already doing more than just talking to them, we are teaching it to them,
And another absurdity is the popular opinion that Iran or North Korea or any other developing country doesn't have the smarts or techincal know-how to make the bomb. See paragraph #1.
And then crown it all with the fact that the USA is something like 30th? down in the quality of education for its k-12 schools. If we want to think about a country that doesn't have the smarts to accomplish great things, then it is us. See para #2.
Bob
---- Original message ----
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:14:42 -0400 From: [email protected] (on behalf of Bob McGwier [email protected]) Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Understanding ITAR To: [email protected]
I want everyone seeing this to read a book. Little Brother by Cory Doctorow is a book aimed at late teens to young adults. This is irrelevant. It is a must read for anyone who doesn't understand the nature of the problems. It is a DEVASTATING treatment of several current event topics, including anti-terrorism approaches, internet privacy, and more.
I find one of the best sections of the book to be its treatment of "false positives". The exact same mathematics applies to this ITAR export prevention problem. The cost of dealing with ITAR is so high in comparison to catching the real events that it should be the poster child for stupidity of the entire approach to security. It has, in my opinion, NOT been worth the cost and I believe in safeguarding those things which are in the interests of U.S. security. I am not a believer in stupidity. I do not subscribe to civil disobedience on this topic because of the cost to my family and friends and it has cost me the ability to talk to my friends for YEARS. U.S. "enemies" have developed on their own or done effective espionage to get all of the technology they need. This has been a truly tragic episode for U.S. space corporations and a great boon to those nations who aspire to be space faring nations rather than be trapped by we and our "friends" to the earth's surface.
A spacecraft, or anything associated with the launch of spacecraft, including ground systems (including amateur radio equipment) is DEFINED to be an ITAR covered item. No one says it is a munition as in a gun. It is DEFINED to be an ITAR covered item. Discussion of it with foreign nationals by U.S. citizens is a "deemed export" and requires an export license AND THEN, the most insidious of all, a technology assistance agreement. The technology assistance agreement in most cases must contain language that the foreign entity (person, group, etc.) must agree to be bound by U.S. law even if they are NEVER enter U.S. I believe now that AMSAT-NA is going to be allowed to talk to our friends. I believe in the end it will not be an onerous set of restrictions. But I am SO glad I am not attempting to sell a satellite or ground equipment as a U.S. person (individual, corporation, green card holder) to a foreign national. The pucker factor is so high because the cost of a mistake is punitive, that you simply cannot afford casual conversations much less technical discussions without an army of lawyers and minders present.
I wish I could find the words to impart the depth of my despair on what this has meant to everyone involved in space in the U.S. from lowly amateur radio operators trying to build satellites to major U.S. corporations. It has done NOTHING effective in my opinion but make lots of lawyers wealthier and insure the long term survival of bureaucrats.
Bob
-- (Co)Author: DttSP, Quiktrak, PowerSDR, GnuRadio Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "You don't need to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.", MLK. Twitter:rwmcgwier Active: Facebook,Myspace,LinkedIn
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Bob...why dont you give us an example of where ITAR has been disadvantageous to the Amateur Satellite community
Robert WB5MZO _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 07:14:42 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Understanding ITAR
I want everyone seeing this to read a book. Little Brother by Cory Doctorow is a book aimed at late teens to young adults. This is irrelevant. It is a must read for anyone who doesn't understand the nature of the problems. It is a DEVASTATING treatment of several current event topics, including anti-terrorism approaches, internet privacy, and more.
If anyone's interested, the complete text appears to be available from Cory on the Web:
http://craphound.com/littlebrother/Cory_Doctorow_-_Little_Brother.htm
I assume this is the work you are referring to... Haven't read past the introduction, but it looks interesting.
Greg KO6TH
_________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/
It is. The book is available under the creative common license. Rules for ITAR and security procedures where ridiculous candidates are treated guilty until proven innocent kill the system. The calculation is explained beautifully by Doctorow in his "false positives" section.
I read a couple of chapters after pdf download and then bought the hardback to provide support (and I love books).
73 Bob N4HY
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: Greg D. [email protected] Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 22:21:21 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: Understanding ITAR
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 07:14:42 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Understanding ITAR
I want everyone seeing this to read a book. Little Brother by Cory Doctorow is a book aimed at late teens to young adults. This is irrelevant. It is a must read for anyone who doesn't understand the nature of the problems. It is a DEVASTATING treatment of several current event topics, including anti-terrorism approaches, internet privacy, and more.
If anyone's interested, the complete text appears to be available from Cory on the Web:
http://craphound.com/littlebrother/Cory_Doctorow_-_Little_Brother.htm
I assume this is the work you are referring to... Haven't read past the introduction, but it looks interesting.
Greg KO6TH
_________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/
participants (8)
-
Bill Ress -
Bob Bruninga -
Bob McGwier -
Greg D. -
John B. Stephensen -
Rocky Jones -
rwmcgwier＠gmail.com
-
Wayne Estes