Visit Gore-Tex Professional at Modern Day Marine

Obama Administration Moves to Restrict ITAR Related Free Speech

International Traffic in Arms: Definitions of Defense Services, Technical Data, and Public Domain; Definition of Product of Fundamental Research; Electronic Transmission and Storage of Technical Data; and Related Definitions

On 3 June, 2015, the State Department published its intent in the Federal Register to make a rather expansive change to how information controlled under International Trafficking in Arms regulations is categorized, reviewed, and transmitted. The proposed rule change is so extensive, it takes up 14 pages in the Federal Register. In case you are unfamilar, ITAR regulates the export of a large host of technologies laid out in the United States Munitions List, including the firearms that many of you own and use.

Bottom Line Up Front
The National Rifle Association’s Institute has distilled this issue at hand into these three paragraphs:

“In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the ‘public domain.’ Essentially, this means data ‘which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public’ through a variety of specified means. These include ‘at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.’ Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.

“The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been ‘exported,’ as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.

“With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be ‘clarifying’ the rules concerning ‘technical data’ posted online or otherwise ‘released’ into the ‘public domain.’ To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.”

Sir, You Go Too Far!
As we often see, legislation and interpretation of legislation by the Executive Branch in the form of regulation often results in unintended consequnces. This isn’t just about small arms or the firearms industry. While many are attempting to frame this as a Second Amendment issue, it’s really about the First Amendment. Information controlled by the International Trafficking in Arms Regulation actually originates in many industries as well as centers of higher learning and research centers.

This proposal also has another very odd consequence. It would place the State Department, which is tasked and organized to implementing foreign policy, in charge of a great deal of domestic censorship. For an arm of the US Goverment which is expected to promote American ideals such as free speech across the globe, they will be situated in a very precarious position. Because ITAR is so broad reaching, includes a wide multitude of types of data, such as raw scientific research, will have to pass through the offices of the state Department’s Directorate of Defense Trafe Controls, which are already inadequately manned and bogged down to deal with the status quo. Imagine a massive increase in self imposed requirements.

You’ve Got A Friend In Me
While it may well be the target of this proposed rule change, the Firearms Industry won’t be the only folks in opposition. Let’s face it, the firearms industry is only making slight, incremental, improvements. The way a gun works hasn’s changed in quite a long time. Some of those other items on the USML on the other hand?

Academics and researchers will be gagged by such a change and may well have to become resgiatered and licensed with State to “export” defense information, in order to even openly discuss their work. Likewise, industry will be further restricted. But, most importantly, this website, those like it, and any US Person who writes about such ITAR controlled information may very well break the law by publishing their remarks, photos, how-to tips, etc. on the Internet. The penalties for unauthorized export are stiff; up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million per incident, including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation. Civil penalties can also be assessed.  

But what can I do?
You can comment. This rule change hasn’t taken effect yet and you can let the Federal Government know how you feel about this proposal by providing feedback.

If you are going to do so, we suggest these pointers:
-You’ve got until, August 3, 2015 to submit your feedback. Comments may be submitted online at regulations.gov or via e-mail at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.”
-Read everything posted about the proposed changes. It’s dry, but know what you are referencing.
-Post your comments.
-Begin your comments with “I am in opposition of the proposed changes” so that, in the odd chance that you agree with some points and oppose others you will not be considered in the “I love the proposed changes” column even though you don’t agree with all of it.
-We suggest you point out the hipocrasy of such a move considering the extensive amount of commercial and government (think US Patent and Trademark Office holdings and military publications) data already available.
-Concentrate on the free speech implications of the proposed change.
-Consider the negative implications for academia, research, industry and individual Americans.

We suggest you use your own voice, keep it civil, direct and to the point, and use proper grammar to be most effective. Do not use a form letter. They carry less weight than individualized comments.

11 Responses to “Obama Administration Moves to Restrict ITAR Related Free Speech”

  1. DOS Fails says:

    Hey You,

    No talking about guns, weapons, parts, data, research or debate. Meanwhile, we’re just going to sell a whole bunch of weapons to Lebanon, Saudi, Pakistan, and whomever else we want.

    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/lebanon-agm-114-hellfire-ii-missiles

    State Department

  2. mike says:

    Hilariously online people are dismissing this as a First Amendment issue that won’t go anywhere, making it obvious they don’t understand ITAR.

  3. Strike-Hold says:

    Welcome to the brave new world of government regulated ‘net neutrality’….

    And don’t forget to register for your ‘free’ portion of Soylent Green this week.

  4. Mike Nomad says:

    What the actual fuck. As has been pointed out, the Data Horse has already left the barn.

    While the move is stupid, pathetic, and really a ButtHurt Tantrum over 80% lowers & 3D printers, initially, it is not free speech issue, and there is no prior restraint.

    Rather, they are updating/creating a number of operational definitions that pertain to existing regulation(s).

    Of course, that all gets sorted by The Supremes (Provided someone raises enough of a stink).

    The problem with the proposed change is this:

    “This rulemaking proposes that the electronic transmission of unclassified ‘‘technical data’’ abroad is not an ‘‘export,’’ provided that the data is sufficiently secured to prevent access by foreign persons.”

    So, hypothetically speaking, and assuming the proposed rules changes are approved, a person with a website who wants to be in compliance with the new regulations would need two things from the people who changed the rules:

    (1) A list of “foreign persons” that are forbidden access to the information. The list would have to include known aliases, known meatspace coordinates, etc. so the website admins could attempt to keep the information properly walled off. Frequency of update is directly tied to the next item…

    (2) A definition of “sufficiently secured.” That may include things like network protocols and encryption standards. Having RTFD quickly, I did not see any such definition(s) included.

    TL;DR – These people are stupid, stock up on your popcorn.

  5. SN says:

    Sec State pushes classified out on her unsecure personal server, no harm no foul; someone buys a shotgun and writes a review-ITAR violation resulting in a fine or prison time.

    Yet no one in DC see a problem?

    • Henrik says:

      This is not 100% true. Rand is the only one that has constantly been attacking Hillary (because he is the only one that is not bought by the forces behind here). Every other week since she became secretary he has been at her and continued after she left office.

      Rand Paul is doing A LOT to stop anything that goes against the constitution even if it follows other laws (like ITAR in this case).
      In case you are not impressed with this statement you may read on otherwise the following is redundant.

      He is focusing on 1st and 4th amendment. But he protects them all. Like his father he does not want any kind of limitation on 2nd amendment (Ron Paul is one of the few that got a “A” grade by Gun Owners of America, I think Romney got an “D” or something). But he is not his father. Rand is much more sympathetic with helping Israel and especially the Kurds with any military support they need. As these are basically the only ones that are arguably mature for Jeffersonian democracy in the area.

      Before you mention that Rand is not as good looking or charismatic as Scott Walker (this is the most common criticism of Rand Paul, that is not a pretty boy like Scott) try to see the work he is doing to protect the constitution. He is not a career politician or else he would have studied law (like Hillary etc.) instead of medicine. You can tell that Rand hates his job as a politician (unlike people like Hillary). This is a GOOD thing. George Washington did not spend a day more than he absolutely needed in office.

      Rand Paul might not be that much of a War Hawk like the rest of the GOP and that is the #2 point that critics bring up. Which is not really true either. He wants to fight terrorism by training and arming only those that absolutely will not massacre Christians.

      He wants boots on the ground when there is a real threat. And the totally obliterate the enemy with overwhelming unforgiving force.

      This special warfare thing with training Shia and especially Sunni has not worked out that well now has it? And we all know it NEVER will.

  6. balais says:

    “screw the government….screw ’em” -Colonel Ludlow

  7. Dirt Dart says:

    This is not new. The ITAR has prohibited the transfer of tech data (including electronic transfers) to foreign persons whether in the U.S. or abroad for years now. Why all the concern now?

    Why is this a free speech issue? I mean lets use some common sense, does anyone protest the fact they cannot sell or disclose nuclear secrets to Iran? That would be free speech right? When does common sense enter the game? I think more education about what the ITAR is and what it was designed to do is important. Not knowing anything about those regulations, it is just ignorant to spout off about them being a bad thing. Just my opinion, YMMV.