On 18 January 2011 19:56, Andrew McLean <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@andros.org.uk">lists@andros.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 16/01/2011 14:01, Matthew Pemble wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
It's not good enough for CESG. At a basic level, you can copy the material other than using the computer - a photo of the screen or just writing it down would be enough for data sensitive other than through mere bulk. The "information" has clearly transfered to a human located in India ...<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Another analogous situation is export controls on "technologies" (i.e. intangibles). Do you think anyone would get away with "Your honour I didn't export the plans for the ****, they remained on a server in the UK. Yes, they could be viewed on a client workstation in Iran, but the plans stayed in the UK".<br>
<font color="#888888">
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>The US Professor Roth case is quite interesting in this context: <a href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/2762">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/2762</a> <br><br>For some of the charges the 'export' occurred when the Chinese and Iranian students viewed the material in Knoxville, Tennessee.<br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>Matthew Pemble<br><br><br>