
	Where results make sense

Topic: Bernstein v United States

Related Topics

Export of cryptography

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

1995 in science

1995

In the News (Mon 6 Jul 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	Bernstein v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		United States is a court case brought by Daniel J. Bernstein challenging restrictions on the export of encryption software outside of the United States.
		The case was first brought in 1995, when Bernstein was a student at Berkeley and wanted to publish a paper and associated source code on his Snuffle encryption system.
		Bernstein was represented by the EFF, who hired outside lawyer Cindy Cohn.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States (196 words)

	Daniel J. Bernstein v. United States Department of State
		The threshold question is whether Bernstein is entitled to bring a facial challenge against the EAR regulations.
		Bernstein has submitted numerous declarations from cryptographers and computer programmers explaining that cryptographic ideas and algorithms are conveniently expressed in source code.
		Bernstein's experience itself demonstrates the enormous uncertainty that exists over the scope of the regulations and the potential for the chilling of scientific expression.
	www2.bc.edu /~herbeck/cyberlaw.bernstein.html (2199 words)

	Document: 9th Circuit Opinion in Bernstein v. DOJ, 5/6/99.
		Bernstein is currently a professor in the Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
		Bernstein subsequently amended his complaint to add the Department of Commerce as a defendant, advancing the same constitutional objections as he had against the State Department.
		Bernstein was not entitled to bring a facial First Amendment challenge to the EAR, and the district court improperly granted an injunction on the basis of a facial challenge.
	techlawjournal.com /courts/bernstein/19990506.htm (8249 words)

	Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State
		Bernstein has articulated his mathematical ideas in two ways: in an academic paper in English entitled "The Snuffle Encryption System," and in "source code" written in "C", a high-level computer programming language,[3] detailing both the encryption and decryption, which he calls "Snuffle.c" and "Unsnuffle.c", respectively.
		On August 20, 1992 the ODTC informed Bernstein that after consultation with the Departments of Commerce and Defense it had determined that the commodity Snuffle 5.0 was a defense article on the USML under Category XIII of the ITAR and subject to licensing by the Department of State prior to export.
		Bernstein asserts that he is not free to teach the Snuffle algorithm, to disclose it at academic conferences, or to publish it in journals or online discussion groups without a license.
	www.loundy.com /CASES/Bernstein_v_US2.html (8362 words)

	Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State
		On August 20, 1992 the ODTC informed Bernstein that after consultation with the Departments of Commerce and Defense it had determined that the commodity Snuffle 5.0 was a defense article under Category XIII of the ITAR and subject to licensing by the Department of State prior to export.
		Bernstein also alleges that the CJ request and registration processes as well as the licensing procedures are unconstitutional, although he does not state the basis of their unconstitutionality.
		United States 391 U.S. Defendant's further argue that plaintiff has not made a colorable claim that the CJ determinations constitute a prior restraint or that the AECA and ITAR are overbroad or vague.
	www.loundy.com /CASES/Bernstein_v_US.html (6631 words)

	Bernstein III
		Bernstein has articulated his mathematical ideas in two ways: in an academic paper in English entitled "The Snuffle Encryption System," and in "source code" written in "C", a high-level computer programming language, [4] detailing both the encryption and decryption, which he calls "Snuffle.c" and "Unsnuffle.c", respectively.
		As the Supreme Court has stated, in determining the extent of the constitutional protection afforded by the guarantees of the First Amendment, "it has been generally, if not universally, considered that it is the chief purpose of the guaranty to prevent previous restraints upon publication." Near v.
		United States Dept. of Defense, 34 F.3d 1469, 1480 (9th Cir.1994), and because the issues are novel and of public importance.
	www.cdt.org /crypto/litigation/bernstein3.html (11480 words)

	Bernstein v. Department of Justice (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		The State Department responded that Snuffle was amunition under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations ("ITAR"), and that Bernstein would need a license to "export" the Paper, the Source Code, or the Instructions.
		By developing Snuffle, Bernstein was attempting to demonstrate that a oneway hash function could be employed as the heart of an encryption method.
		Oklahoma, 413 U.S. Bernstein may very well have a claim under an as-applied First Amendment analysis; however, such a claim must be left to the district court's determination in the first instance.
	lw.bna.com /lw/19990518/9700582.htm (8138 words)

	Brigham Young University Law Review: Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice: A cryptic interpretation of ...
		United States Department of Justice,2 the Ninth Circuit decided that encryption source code is protected free speech.
		Part IV argues that the Bernstein decision is inconsistent with established free speech precedent and that a test distinguishing unprotected functional activity from protected expressive activity is more consonant with previous Supreme Court decisions and the underlying purposes of free speech.
		United States,b Justice Brennan, writing for the Supreme Court, stated: "The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people."' Accordingly, speech is a utilitarian tool designed to promote democracy.
	www.findarticles.com /p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200001/ai_n8894257 (943 words)

	United States v. Cleveland
		Inga S. Bernstein and John H. Cunha, by Appointment of the Court, with whom Norman S. Zalkind, Zalkind, Rodriguez, Lunt and Duncan and Salsberg, Cunha and Holcomb, P.C. were on consolidated briefs for appellants Enrique Gray-Santana and Donald E. Cleveland.
		Andrea Nervi Ward, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on briefs for the United States.
		United States, ___ U.S. Ct. 501 (1995), a decision handed down by the Supreme Court shortly after acceptance of their guilty pleas.
	www.law.emory.edu /1circuit/feb97/96-1043.01a.html (5823 words)

	Snuffle
		Snuffle is an encryption system designed by Daniel Bernstein and the subject of his court case, Bernstein v.
		United States, the court case that overturned and eventually eliminated US export restrictions on cryptography, is that the subject of the case, Snuffle, was an attempt to bypass the regulations itself.
		Although his court cases was dismissed in October 2003, Bernstein still has not published his cryptography pages or the Snuffle papers.
	www.brainyencyclopedia.com /encyclopedia/s/sn/snuffle.html (188 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		United States, No. C-95-0582, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13146 (N.D. Cal. August 25, 1997), relied on the analysis in Bernstein I and did not revisit the basic First Amendment issue.) Two lines of reasoning sustain that conclusion.
		In Bernstein I, Judge Patel systematically analyzed and rejected each of these contentions, holding that encryption was indeed protected expression despite its unfamiliar format.
		Even if the encryption program were to be analyzed as expressive conduct rather than (as the court had already ruled) pure speech, the licensing scheme would nonetheless fail to meet even the diminished level of scrutiny that would apply to such a case.
	cr.yp.to /export/1997/1110-wheeler.txt (3705 words)

	Bernstein v. United States (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		United States is the ongoing court case brought by Professor Bernstein challenging restrictions on publication of encryption material.
		First brought in 1995, the court case won a landmark decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that software was speech protected by the First Amendment and that the governments regulations preventing its publication were unconstitutional.
		The government modified the regulations, substantially loosening them, and Bernstein is back in district court challenging them again.
	www.ukpedia.com /b/bernstein-v-united-states.html (140 words)

	Bernstein v. USDOJ Opinion
		Bernstein has submitted numerous declarations from cryptographers and computer programmers explaining that cryptographic ideas and algorithms are conveniently expressed in source code.(12) That this should be so is, on reflection, not surprising.
		Because the prepublication licensing scheme challenged here vests unbridled discretion in government officials, and because it directly jeopardizes scientific expression, we are satisfied that Bernstein may properly bring a facial challenge against the regulations.(18) We accordingly turn to the merits.
		United States, 403 U.S. (Stewart, J., joined by White, J., concurring); Near, 283 U.S. at 716; see also United States v.
	legal.web.aol.com /decisions/dlother/bernstein.html (7780 words)

	Daniel J. Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, et al. - Phillips Nizer LLP Internet Library of Law and ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		To obtain such a license, one must apply to the appropriate government agency, which reviews the application on a case by case basis to determine if the export is "consistent with United States national security and foreign policy interests." Such application must either be resolved, or referred to the President, within 90 days.
		To prevail on his claim, Bernstein must both have standing to advance a facial attack to the EAR regulations and demonstrate that those regulations constitute an impermissible prior restraint on speech.
		As such, concluded the dissent, because the challenged licensing scheme is not narrowly directed at expression or conduct commonly associated with expression, plaintiff Bernstein was not permitted to bring a facial challenge to the statute under the First Amendment.
	www.phillipsnizer.com /library/cases/lib_case135.cfm (852 words)

	Junger v. Daley: Opinion and Order July 2, 1998 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the First Amendment was adopted to foster the spread of ideas: "The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people." Id.
		United States Dep't of State, 922 F. Supp 1426, 1136 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (" Bernstein I ") (finding that source code is speech for the purposes of First Amendment analysis).
		State of Washington, 418 U.S. (per curiam), the Supreme Court established guidelines for determining whether occasionally expressive conduct is "sufficiently imbued with the elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First.
	samsara.law.cwru.edu /comp_law/jvd/pdj11.html (7118 words)

	Bernstein v. Department of State (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		Bernstein II and to the extent that these arguments are applicable in current analysis, the court will address them.
		Bernstein II, the court concludes that because the legal questions at issue are novel, complex and of public importance, the injunctive relief should be as narrow as possible pending appeal.
		Bernstein II to the present order, neither is it necessary to vacate that decision.
	lw.bna.com /lw/19970916/950582.htm (10309 words)

	Bernstein v. United States
		Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
		There followed a protracted and unproductive series of letter communications between Bernstein and the government, wherein Bernstein unsuccessfully attempted to determine the scope and application of the export regulations to Snuffle.
		The EAR regulations at issue plainly satisfy the first requirement -- "the determination of who may speak and who may not is left to the unbridled discretion of a government official."...
	www.comm.uiuc.edu /helle/Bernstein.htm (4916 words)

	Opinion on Motion to Dissmiss in Bernstein v. U.S. Dep't of State (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		United States District Court for the Northern District of California
		Bernstein has articulated his mathematical ideas in two ways: in an academic paper in English entitled ``The Snuffle Encryption System,'' and in ``source code'' written in ``C'', a high-level computer programming language,
		On October 5, 1993 the ODTC notified Bernstein that all of the referenced items were defense articles under Category XIII(b)(1).
	samsara.law.cwru.edu /comp_law/bern_dec.html (6498 words)

	Bernstein vs. US Department of State - August 25, 1997 Decision (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		The ITAR, administered within the State Department by the Director of the Office of Defense Trade Controls ("ODTC"), Bureau of Politico- Military Affairs, regulates the import and export of defense articles and defense services by designating such items to the United States Munitions List ("USML"), 22 U.S.C. § 2778(a)(1).
		A. Analytical Framework As the Supreme Court has stated, in determining the extent of the constitutional protection afforded by the guarantees of the First Amendment, "it has been generally, if not universally, considered that it is the chief purpose of the guaranty to prevent previous restraints upon publication." Near v.
		B. Analysis In Bernstein II this court held that the ITAR effected an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech due to inadequate procedural safeguards.
	samsara.law.cwru.edu /comp_law/bern970825dec.html (10682 words)

	MTTLR Short Note Footnotes (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		United States Dep't of State, 945 F. Supp.
		United States Dep't of State, 974 F. Supp.
		United States Dep't of Justice at 1137-38, 1139.
	www.mttlr.org /html/ShortNotes/Sterman_notes.html (80 words)

	Daniel J. Bernstein v. United States Department of State, et al. - Phillips Nizer LLP Internet Library of Law and Court ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		By using the source codes, one could translate an english language communication into and out of an unreadable cipher text, thereby allowing the message to be transmitted without fear of it being read by anyone other than the intended recipient.
		The Department of State classified the source code as a defense article subject to the strictures of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
		Among other things, this classification obligated plaintiff to obtain a license before he could export the source code out of the United States, or disclose it to any foreign person inside or outside the United States.
	www.phillipsnizer.com /library/cases/lib_case136.cfm (384 words)

	Netlitigation \| Case \|Bernstein v. U.S. Dep't. of Justice (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		United States Department of Justice, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 97-16686 (May 6, 1999)
		The United States Department of Commerce, through its Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"), sought to require plaintiff Bernstein and other cryptographers to obtain licenses before "exporting" encryption source code, including publishing it on the Internet.
		In a divided (2-1) decision, the Court held this invalid as a "prior restraint" of constitutionally protected expression.
	www.netlitigation.com /netlitigation/cases/bernstein2.htm (115 words)

	Why War? Keywords: Electronic Frontier Foundation (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		The creation of the organisation was motivated by the raid on Steve Jackson Games by the United States Secret Service.
		United States, where programmer and professor Daniel Bernstein sued the government for permission to publish his encryption software, Snuffle, and a paper describing it.
		More recently the organization has been involved in defending Edward Felten, Jon Johansen, and Dmitry Sklyarov.
	why-war.com /encyclopedia/organizations/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation (504 words)

	Bernstein v. USDOJ (9th Cir. May 6, 1999)
		Bernstein is currently a professor in the Department of
		Gwin of the United States District Court for the Northern Dis-
		Bernstein was entitled to bring a facial challenge to the EAR.
	www.epic.org /crypto/export_controls/bernstein_decision_9_cir.html (6967 words)

	Encyclopedia: Bernstein v. United States
		United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
		United States is a court case brought by export of encryption software outside of the United States.
		Click for other authoritative sources for this topic (summarised at Factbites.com).
	www.nationmaster.com /encyclopedia/Bernstein-v.-United-States (241 words)

	FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code
		There are several versions or parts of this case provided by the court.
		BERNSTEIN v DEPT OF JUSTICE [Currently not available]
		WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW: WSU alumni make up over 25% of the Orange County Bar, and provide an enormous resource for our students and graduates.
	laws.lp.findlaw.com /9th/9716686.html (234 words)

	The Cyberlaw Encyclopedia version 2.0: Cryptography_and_Export_Controls/Cases
		U.S. Department of State (DC N. Calif, filed Dec. 16, 1996)
		United States Department of State, No. C-95-0582 - N.D. Cal. April 15, 1996
		Disclaimer: Not all materials may be applicable in your jurisdiction.
	www.gahtan.com /cyberlaw/Cryptography_and_Export_Controls/Cases (117 words)

	BERNSTEIN v UNITED STATES V DEPARTMENT OF STATE - Legal Case Documents (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		BERNSTEIN v UNITED STATES V DEPARTMENT OF STATE
		BERNSTEIN is a graduate student in mathematics at the University of California at
		At all times relevant to this action, Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE was and is
	www.legalcasedocs.com /120/249/966.html (381 words)

	Bernstein v. United States (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		This page is now much more comprehensive; you should change your bookmark to point to http://export.cr.yp.to.
		For the big picture of related laws in the United States and around the world, see the Crypto Law Survey by Bert-Jaap Koops.
		The Crypto Law Survey includes information on Karn and Junger, two court cases similar to Bernstein v.
	cr.yp.to /export.html (132 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)