How to Spread Word about the ITAR Proposal

[barnbwt]

Anyone who's looked past the loud headlines to read the details behind the ITAR rule change knows, it's a really complicated and frustrating mess in there.

Makes it really hard to describe with a quick sound bite or T-shirt slogan. I have a feeling that's the idea behind this move. Since the average American attention span is supposed to literally be shorter than a fruit fly's these days, I --hey! stop looking over there!-- I think we'll need a gimmick.

The response to most of the blog articles "Obama's Banning All Gun Forums" has been heavily tinged with skepticism and dismissal. Fair enough, gunnies cry wolf a lot, and it doesn't help that click-bait ads have been running that headline for six straight years now. Due to the complex, convoluted nature of the topic, I don't think an article will be the best way to call attention to the issue. I think they will be helpful for education and motivation, but only for people already incensed and willing to do some reading and learning in order to confront their reps and the State Department to comment.

Instead, I think a possible method may be to show the uninformed. There is a ton of technical data floating online and added daily to the public discourse that would likely be subject to the new rules, possibly being restricted from discussion before long. At the risk of advocating trolling on gun boards (a capital offense, I know), I propose we call attention to when <ITAR> technical data necessary to the manufacture, maintenance, or operation of arms, their accessories, or their tactics come up for discussion. </ITAR>

Technical boards devoted to gun building and reloading should be off limits for this tactic, since ITAR data will be so ubiquitous there that you would shortly be shown the digital door if you <ITAR><ITAR/> every post you add. But in the General Discussion and equipment of various forums, the data is sporadic enough that you may not come off as annoying, but still consistently appears every other thread.

I think, especially for discussion of new developments in industry (i.e. hot topics for gun consumers) the tactic could be very illuminating to those who do not have a grasp of what the regulation does currently and is seeking authority to do.

TCB

 

[hso]

I think we should look outside of the firearms community for examples where the new blurring of ITAR definitions would cause discussions in crowd sourcing, crowd funding, and crowd design for software, electronics, equipment to become restricted by ITAR and then bring it into the firearms arena where our 2A rights would be infringed by the ITAR definitions "fuzziness". While the 1st A right erosion by these new definitions are a Constitutional violation our community is the only one where two Amendments could be violated by ITAR, both the 1st and the 2nd.

 

[barnbwt]

...but the online-media defense articles that would be regulated under the change pertain to 'firearms up to caliber .50' etc. etc. etc., and stuff like encryption has already been protected in court (guns may ultimately be as well, but obviously the State Dept isn't convinced of that yet)

What other communities would be impacted to anywhere near the same degree? I think we could argue that future expansion to things like <ITAR> code exploits/online security/etc. </ITAR> are inevitable. Beyond that, the combination of ITAR and e-net geekery is simply too much for my pea-brain to process, and I can't even guess at what may be in store for them

At least with gun stuff I feel I have a reasonable grasp of what might be covered in accordance with ITAR --I got nowhere near that kind of technical understanding for practically any other subject but aviation, and less there than for guns (don't tell my boss).

TCB

 

[Midwest]

I think we should look outside of the firearms community

This is a "free speech issue" that would fit perfectly on these sites

http://slashdot.org/

(While Slashdot is a geek site known as "news for nerds" and more known for carrying stories about computer software. They often carry news and discussions about governments trying to stifle free speech and ideas-which what this is all about.)

_______________________________________________________________

https://www.eff.org/


("The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. We work to ensure that rights and freedoms are enhanced and protected as our use of technology grows.")

___________________________________________________


Alternative media like

http://rt.com/

RT also known as Russia Today sometimes run stories that the U.S. media fails to cover. They have run some gun related stories in the past while giving both sides of the issues. If any major international media would cover this story, it would be rt.
---------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wnd.com/

Right Wing Conservative site.

__________________________________________________________

Podcasts

Pro-gun podcasts

Free Speech Podcasts

Geek Podcasts (They hate censorship as much as anyone)

Radio

Gary Null Show

http://feeds.feedburner.com/TheGaryNullShow

("Gary takes on the real issues that the mainstream media is afraid to tackle. Tune in to find out the latest about health news, healing, politics, and the economy.") Since this is about censorship. He might cover it. Gary is on several stations on the East and West Coast, has a loyal audience and an mp3 archive.
.

 

[hso]

I agree we're the most vulnerable and impacted, without question. I also think we can be a bit insular when there are broad questions to be incorporated that reach more people than just our community.

Our concern is the free speech impact on the 2A. If we approach this as a 2A instead of 1A issue we miss the opportunity at that broader appeal.

 

[IdahoSkies]

So who should be contacting them? I think EFF will want to be at least be aware of this. It is right up their alley. Do we all individually ask them, hey are you going to be involved in this? Or how do we want to approach it.

First amendment free speech, as well as perhaps small business groups. Firearm related business are booming and growing and I being able to discuss and sell products on line, including reviews, is integral to that growth.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Wired now has a writeup on the proposed new regs

I think you guys are right on about emphasizing the 1st Amendment aspect and appealing to the techie crowd.

Wired has already picked up the story, their report is at
http://www.wired.com/2015/06/feds-restrict-3d-printed-gun-files/ -- they see it as definitely related to people being able to make their own guns and cite the Defense Distributed suit.

Here are a couple of quotes:
A State Department spokesperson, who was authorized to speak to WIRED only
on background, said that the notice in the federal register wasn’t intended
to target specifically 3-D printed guns, and that its timing with Defense
Distributed’s lawsuit was an “unfortunate coincidence.”

...

As for the letter to Defense Distributed, the State Department spokesperson
confirmed that it was intended to counter the publication of 3-D printed
gun blueprints. The spokesperson was unpersuaded by Defense Distributed’s
free speech argument. “For us, it’s not about free speech. This is about
securing defense technology,” he said. “If two US citizens want to email
each other CAD files, that’s not our concern. But they need to follow the
International Trade in Arms Regulations. ITAR compliance is ITAR
compliance.”

Those who have read the whole proposal, do you think it actually would apply to individuals emailing each other CAD files, even though an email message is not "publication"?

 

[barnbwt]

Anybody having luck on the non-gun front? I suspect Wired was most interested since they just ran a popular segment (even made it onto an NPR interview segment) on the exact stuff being targeted here, which is good timing for us.

I do worry we run the risk of sounding like Chicken Littles even more so than we do already, seeing as at least firearms are specifically targeted by the proposed changes.

One thought I had, after reading into the HB2710 bill proposed to curtail abuse of the various "sporting purposes" carve outs in gun bans; why not work to bar small arms from ITAR regulation altogether?

Hear me out;
-Small arms are essentially given explicit constitutional protection
-As is public speech/discourse (so the combo should be even more so)
-Small arms are a relatively minor threat to us, on a 'national' security level (compared to true existential threats)
-Our most advanced small arms are already copied overseas almost instantaneously (to no particularly significant effect on our overall strategic standing)
-Cutting edge tech is protected by proprietary data rules, copyright, patent, and espionage laws if classified already. ITAR just allows for restriction of 'lesser' data not constituting a significant threat but still irritating to our betters
-Goods import/export laws still regulate the actual transfer of firearms components (so ITAR is basically a pile-on for smuggling offenses in many cases)

Basically, between smuggling and espionage laws, all the stuff we have legitimate reasons for keeping out of the hands of baddies is already illegal to share with them. I figure having a legislative backup plan for when the State Department takes our comments into 'consideration' before going forward anyway might be a good idea

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

It would appear the purpose of this change may be to both moot a pending lawsuit (Wilson/Gura) and possibly restrict the information available for filing a followup (see: the various suits shut down through data classification in the name of national security).

Unlike M855, it appears the govt is not nearly meddling, but actively interested in this change for a material reason (ITAR reach being ruled upon in courts). Therefore it seems unlikely we can sway the change, comments be damned, seeing as this is the current administration we're talking about.

Instead, it may be more profitable to enlist congressional help via legislation. I think exempting small arms from ITAR restrictions in general may be the only way to prevent this kind of subjective abuse in the future. It's been a long while since a small arms technology constituted a true existential risk to our strategic standing.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

That's not to say don't comment to the State Dept

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

Here's my best effort:

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to object to the proposed changes regarding the ITAR, namely the re-definition of the term "defense articles" subject to restriction of foreign-export. It appears the reclassification of assorted "technical data" pertaining to previously-classified "defense articles" represents an unprecedented expansion of the materials claimed subject to the regulation.

Specifically, how this newly claimed authority pertains to the realm of firearms. Throughout the entirety of this nation's history, the lawful design, construction, and discussion of firearms amongst the public has been thoughtfully protected, in keeping with the first and second amendments to the US Constitution. The rule changes described in the federal register appear to usurp this intentional protection, using the justification of the appearance of internet communication, yet the regulatory changes extend far beyond mere internet exchange.

The rule requires anyone creating newly defined ITAR "defense article" data or media to first seek State Department approval and registration before proceeding with its release into the public sphere. Apart from the prohibitory tax burden imposed by mandatory ITAR registration, this approval process constitutes a severe prior restraint on speech that has until now has been clearly protected by US statutes. Anyone interested in learning the details of firearms operation, design, construction, or performance would inevitably become entrapped by these far reaching regulatory changes that seek to restrict access to all new firearms technical data not already in the public sphere. Such a result would be a fiscal and legal nightmare for both the government and those seeking to operate within this scheme, and is unacceptable.

Apart from the severe impacts on online information sharing, which is now the predominant form of communication for technical data of all kinds, the new material classification rules would prevent the publishing of detailed technical articles and manuscripts regarding firearms in assorted print or broadcast media, even though the claimed justification for these newly claimed powers is the ascendance of the internet. The internet has been repeatedly held as no more threatening and no less protected than any other form of publication, and for the ITAR or State Department to determine online communication as especially dangerous speech is unacceptable.

The justification to classify as "defense articles" sensitive to our nation's strategic standing, the various firearm technical data, is also unsupportable. Small arms up to and including .50 caliber are perfectly legal devices for American civilians to purchase, own, build, and operate in accordance with federal and state laws. Far from constituting a national security threat, our governing documents make it clear this information and its free disclosure are absolutely critical to our security as a free nation. They cannot therefore constitute such a significant strategic or existential threat to our nation's security domestically or abroad that mere technical speech pertaining to them must be restricted severely. Such a broad restriction on speech regarding an entire class of technology in common lawful use by the public fails even the thinnest scrutiny.

In conclusion; the proposed changes to ITAR must not be adopted. They are far too sweeping beyond the claimed purpose, the claimed purpose itself is so sweeping it falls outside the existing regulatory authority of the State Department, the type of data that would be restricted has both historical precedent and legal protection spanning centuries, and the security threat claimed in order to justify this threat is wildly exaggerated if not fabricated outright.

Thank you for your time spent addressing my concerns,
TCB

I'm sure ya'll can add some further line items worth objecting to; there's plenty to go around.

 

[barnbwt]

Hey, we're up to 1630 comments!

Uh, oh, a lot of them are like this;

THIS MAN LOST HIS DAUGHTER IN THE COLUMBINE SCHOOL SHOOTING! HE SPOKE TO YOU , YOU DIDN'T HEAR OR LISTEN THEN. DO YOU THINK YOU CAN LISTEN NOW...”

and;

shall not infringe

Lots of profanity, bible quotations, threats, and general derpery.

Please don't be these guys...whatever the heck they're talking about, it isn't ITAR, and it isn't coherent (or pertinent, and will be discarded). We've got all July to work on this; do a quality job, guys

Also, FYI, the name you supply is probably searchable by Google should you choose to not remain anonymous; be advised. It is clearly displayed within the website, too.

ETA: 1740 comments; at this pace, we'll have over a million comments in the next month!

Worth mentioning; it appears that comment numbers are updated constantly, but actual comments are not uploaded immediately. I am guessing each is given a preliminary review for classified info or something (they have a disclaimer on the website) before being uploaded. Still lots of profanity in those that made it through, though they are supposed to be pruned. Gotta love how your comments on ITAR censorship of public comment must be reviewed by the ITAR censorship board before they can be released for the public to see.

TCB

 

[hso]

profanity, bible quotations, threats, and general derpery

THR members,

No comment on this to DoS or letters to our elected officials should have any of what barnbwt just cited. Those comments will be automatically rejected. Clean, rational, criticism is all that carries weight. Throwing away your opportunity and making the 2A community look like the kunckledragging morons the Antis want the public to think we are hurts us all.

"The proposed changes to ITAR are vague and unconstitutionally restricts expression. They would allow unqualified licensing officials broad discretion in choosing what forms of common speech are "defense articles" or "technical data" or "export" without providing the necessary procedural protections for a licensing system that operates as a prior restraint on speech, including prompt judicial review. It will further stifle the desire of start up developers of new products and technology to invest the time and effort into innovation needed to create new jobs harming the U.S. economy and thereby national security.

New software such as security and encryption programs, 3D drawings or models, and control code for 3D printers or machining equipment would fall into the "defense article" category under this new scheme quashing even discussion of improvements to programs already in existence.

The change in the meaning of the word “required” in the context proposed would make technical information about a “defense article” on par with the article itself and subject to prior approval or penalty.

The proposed “technical data” change would be re-defined to include anything related to the development, production, operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of a “defense article”. That basically includes every detailed preview or review and how-to instruction of a "defense article" ever developed or in development, every discussion of what knowledgable and general users have on the merits and criticism of those "defense articles", and guts the new and powerful free speech approach to crowdsourcing problem solutions. These forms of speech and more would fall into this category as well.

The expanded definition of “public domain” would include the internet, as well as any mechanism where further distribution of the information is not prohibited. Anyone who wants to post “technical data” to this expanded definition of the “public domain” (forum posts on the internet, videos on YouTube, articles on blogs, print publications) would have to apply to the government for permission before publication. If that permission is not granted in a timely manner and the interested citizen, organization, or company proceeded, the fines could range into the millions of dollars.

Posting of that information to the internet would now be considered equivalent to “exporting” that information whether it was read or not, whether the servers were in the U.S. or not, whether internet discussion required permission to access or not.

The costs to comply and fines for failing to comply with these badly considered and over-broadly written ITAR requirements alone constitute a prior restraint of free speech and pose a barrier to innovation in the U.S. and should be withdrawn."

 

[barnbwt]

Nice letter; it's shorter than mine

It's really hard to object to this thing concisely, isn't it? I personally think that's the most troublesome part of this regulatory tactic kick the administration's been on; the regs practically pass before we can even understand what's happening --and by then we've missed something else entirely! :banghead:

For instance; almost faded from the news is the ATF determination change regarding AOW's. It was determined that the AK/AR pistol ban angle was totally overblown, but are we really supposed to believe they'd change the regs to have no impact on anything? I determined the NAA mini's with folding grips would be subject, but was that really the extent of it? Seems doubtful, but it doesn't seem like there is any motivation to look into it. Especially suspicious considering the change claims 'disguised guns' are not presently restricted as AOW's, when we all know this to be the case (pen/cane guns, especially, thought the rule change is ostensibly to address 'pager guns')

TCB

 

[hso]

The shorter the better in comments so I recommend members snipping the first and last paragraphs and send a version in to comments while using some version of the longer "letter" to your congresscritter.

"The proposed changes to ITAR are vague and unconstitutionally restricts expression. They would allow unqualified licensing officials broad discretion in choosing what forms of common speech are "defense articles" or "technical data" or "export" without providing the necessary procedural protections for a licensing system that operates as a prior restraint on speech, including prompt judicial review. It will further stifle the desire of start up developers of new products and technology to invest the time and effort into innovation needed to create new jobs harming the U.S. economy and thereby national security.

The costs to comply and fines for failing to comply with these badly considered and over-broadly written ITAR requirements alone constitute a prior restraint of free speech and pose a barrier to innovation in the U.S. and should be withdrawn."


vs.

"Dear Congresscritter Bombast,

I urge you to fight the proposed changes to ITAR as they are vague and unconstitutionally restricts expression. They would allow unqualified licensing officials broad discretion in choosing what forms of common speech are "defense articles" or "technical data" or "export" without providing the necessary procedural protections for a licensing system that operates as a prior restraint on speech, including prompt judicial review. It will further stifle the desire of start up developers of new products and technology to invest the time and effort into innovation needed to create new jobs harming the U.S. economy and thereby national security.

New software such as security and encryption programs, 3D drawings or models, and control code for 3D printers or machining equipment would fall into the "defense article" category under this new scheme quashing even discussion of improvements to programs already in existence.

The change in the meaning of the word “required” in the context proposed would make technical information about a “defense article” on par with the article itself and subject to prior approval or penalty.

The proposed “technical data” change would be re-defined to include anything related to the development, production, operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of a “defense article”. That basically includes every detailed preview or review and how-to instruction of a "defense article" ever developed or in development, every discussion of what knowledgable and general users have on the merits and criticism of those "defense articles", and guts the new and powerful free speech approach to crowdsourcing problem solutions. These forms of speech and more would fall into this category as well.

The expanded definition of “public domain” would include the internet, as well as any mechanism where further distribution of the information is not prohibited. Anyone who wants to post “technical data” to this expanded definition of the “public domain” (forum posts on the internet, videos on YouTube, articles on blogs, print publications) would have to apply to the government for permission before publication. If that permission is not granted in a timely manner and the interested citizen, organization, or company proceeded, the fines could range into the millions of dollars.

Posting of that information to the internet would now be considered equivalent to “exporting” that information whether it was read or not, whether the servers were in the U.S. or not, whether internet discussion required permission to access or not.

The costs to comply and fines for failing to comply with these badly considered and over-broadly written ITAR requirements alone constitute a prior restraint of free speech and pose a barrier to innovation in the U.S. and should be withdrawn.

Please ensure these changes do not go into ITAR as I'm certain other voters are just as interested in you defending our freedom as we are in working for your reelection.

Sincerely,

John Q. Voter (that doesn't want to have to waste their time seeing you thrown out of office next election)"

 

[IdahoSkies]

Besides our own elected officials, any specific committee we should be directing things too?

 

[barnbwt]

The House Ways and Means committee is considering that awesome HR2710 bill which defines 'sporting purposes' as encompassing all 'lawful purposes.' Getting ITAR out of civilian firearms' business is very much in the same rationale, if you think about it, so perhaps Rob Bishop (UT) may also be of use, if he feels like trying to get more stuff packed into that bill, or starting a parallel one.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

I haven't heard much about this; did we end up proving it's all a whole bunch of nuthin', or are we pretending the administration can't possibly be as brazen as the proposal seems to be? It strikes me as odd how little play this is getting compared to the M855 fiasco, which at the end of the day affected a much smaller segment of the gunnies with oxen to be gored.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

Finally got a response. It is apparent that I was unable to make this issue stand out from carry-law. It also appears few folks are taking this seriously.

Has there been a definitive determination as to whether the proposal will not go forward, or should not be interpreted as a potential near-ban on uploads of firearms technical data? There have been numerous blowhards claiming it would only apply to military contractors (the historical focus of ITAR), but as anyone who has messed with ITAR knows, contractor status has exactly zilch to do with compliance, and it is the nature of the information you work with that determines your responsibility. If the State Dept holds that all non-public technical info on firearms is subject --as it appears they are-- we will all be liable for sanitizing our upload data. Not cool.

Thank you for contacting me regarding federal firearms laws. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.



As a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, I believe it is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen's constitutional right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes. Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms.



It is encouraging that the Supreme Court has upheld the will of our Founders and re-affirmed the ideals upon which our country was established. The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller provides a greater guarantee that Americans' constitutional rights remain secure from federal government intrusion. I was proud to sign an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting the fundamental right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This landmark ruling continues to have implications far beyond the District of Columbia. In the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago decision, the Supreme Court struck down the arbitrary gun ban in Chicago—thereby affirming that the Second Amendment protects Americans’ fundamental rights against state and local encroachment.



As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to harm innocent Americans. I believe that strictly enforcing the law—and imposing tougher sentences on career criminals and violent offenders who use firearms—will reduce violence more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, lawmakers should work to reduce violence by enacting policies that increase treatment options for those who are dangerously mentally ill—a common factor in many acts of mass violence that have occurred in communities across the nation.





I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to protect our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.



Sincerely,

In light of his ardent promotion of Fast Track for unknown foreign trade agreements which appear all but certain to include rules about commerce in arms (potentially stretching beyond the membrane of our borders, btw), let's just say I'm a bit disappointed with this non-answer of non-answers. It may be worth pitching comments to the Freedom Caucus or whatever they call themselves, since that upstart group is likely looking for some issue to prove their worth by.

"Why do you guys want this so bad, anyway? It's suspicious."
"Don't worry about it. Now go away, kid, you're botherin' me."
BTW, Cornyn appears to have accepted some 40+ million dollars on behalf of pro trade groups. Maybe we just need to buy him. I wonder what the going rate is?

TCB

 

[hso]

as anyone who has messed with ITAR knows, contractor status has exactly zilch to do with compliance

Exactly the problem. The regulation isn't limited to government contractors.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Finally got a response. It is apparent that I was unable to make this issue stand out from carry-law. It also appears few folks are taking this seriously.

Has there been a definitive determination as to whether the proposal will not go forward, or should not be interpreted as a potential near-ban on uploads of firearms technical data? There have been numerous blowhards claiming it would only apply to military contractors (the historical focus of ITAR), but as anyone who has messed with ITAR knows, contractor status has exactly zilch to do with compliance, and it is the nature of the information you work with that determines your responsibility. If the State Dept holds that all non-public technical info on firearms is subject --as it appears they are-- we will all be liable for sanitizing our upload data. Not cool.



In light of his ardent promotion of Fast Track for unknown foreign trade agreements which appear all but certain to include rules about commerce in arms (potentially stretching beyond the membrane of our borders, btw), let's just say I'm a bit disappointed with this non-answer of non-answers. It may be worth pitching comments to the Freedom Caucus or whatever they call themselves, since that upstart group is likely looking for some issue to prove their worth by.

"Why do you guys want this so bad, anyway? It's suspicious."
"Don't worry about it. Now go away, kid, you're botherin' me."

TCB

It's not that you weren't able to make it stand out from carry law. The response is a canned response, probably his office (or a bot) sends it out to anyone who writes in on any firearm-related topic. I have experienced this with my senators and representative on many topics.

 

[barnbwt]

Come to think of it, what are the odds such "red blubbered 'murican" Republicans like Cornyn would even oppose such measures so vital to our national security and strategic standing? Again, still, we need to find a way to explain the issue quickly and clearly, or find someone who can actually speak to these people <finger on nose> and articulate the position.

I like the term 'digital assault weapon ban' as it is descriptive enough, but it isn not synonymous with this specific issue for those without familiarity with the ITAR change.

TCB