Re: [Paparazzi-devel] question about paparazzi on sounding rocket

[Bernard Davison]

On 15/02/2012, at 11:50 PM, Chris Gough wrote:

>> I find it interesting how they came to the their assessment... I've been 
>> looking at the dual use goods and export controls for 10+ years and am 
>> intrigued that the open source being exempt wasn't taken into account.
> 
> I bet you have - I didn't check the list for military-surplus rocket
> motors, but they are probably on page 1 :)
> 
> Imagine a politician, who doesn't understand anything except their
> "soldiers 5" (short list of bullet points and five minute briefing),
> walking into a hostile TV interview and trying to split that hair. I'm
> sure there are plenty of equivalent closed-door diplomatic scenarios.
> Software maybe, but hardware? There would have to be assault rifle
> blueprints in the public domain, anyone game to test the
> "public-domain hardware exception" theory with a create of them?

He he he... Fortunately this was well before my time... 

>> Being open means that everyone already has everything...
>> I guess that doesn't count the components on the board which of course would 
>> be subject to the export controls...
>> 
>> Regardless they have made an assessment.
>> Now we need to get them to do another and hopefully convince them of the 
>> error in their initial assessment.
> 
> That would be very convenient. But just getting good at working within
> the system is also quite convenient.
> 
> The law is just the foundation of their authority; they are not the
> judiciary, they do not serve the law as an end unto itself. Their
> authority is just one tool available to them for pursuing their real
> mission (managing a subset of national security risks, including
> certain kinds of international reputation risk). Their unstated
> mission might include political and career risks too, but it's a
> fairly cohesive set all the same.
> 
> The point of my earlier "regulatory risk differentiation" wiki link is
> that if we can earn their trust, they should stay out of our way
> because they will not perceive our activities as risky. I think that's
> the real bottom line.

I couldn't agree more with that. :-)

Lets hope there aren't nutters with dumb ass plans involved or wanting to get 
involved... (How would we know... what would we do if we found out... who 
knows...)
But I"m certain that there are multiple government agencies watching what is 
said on this list and keenly interested in what people are doing with 
paparazzi. ;-)

Good fun eh.