Judge's order sealing the crypto code case exhibits, since ITAR forbids our distributing them.

Cover letters from DJB to State Dept for five separate CJ Requests

Letter from Robinson to DJB, CJ determination for CJ 191-92

The complaint (charges) filed by EFF and Dan Bernstein against the State Dept. et al., seeking a ruling against the US ITAR export restrictions on encryption, as unconstitutional restraint of free speech.

The government's attempt to have the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This is a memo prepared for Davis Robinson, then the Legal Adviser for the Department of State. This is a very well-documented paper on the various unconstitutional provisions of ITAR. The two areas this memo concentrates on are the "technical data" definition as well as the definition of "export." Near the conclusion, Simms states: "We remain of the opinion, however, that ... the ITAR still present some areas of potentially unconstitutional application. ...The best legal solution ... is for the Department of State, not the courts, to narrow the regulations."

Bernstein's request that the court take judicial notice of the memos from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (the Exhibits to Lee Tien declaration).

Bernstein's objection to the introduction of evidence (declarations of William Lowell and Louis Giles) at this stage of the proceedings, when only the question of jurisdiction is supposed to be decided. In deciding jurisdiction, the truth of the allegations is assumed unless actual facts are disputed.

Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in further support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The government's rebuttal to Bernstein's opposition to its motion to dismiss.

Apr. 15, 1996 court decision denying the govt. motion to dismiss, in Bernstein v. State Dept. This is a very important decision, as it establishes caselaw precedent for the First Amendment protection of software. The court also takes the government to task for restricting the paper publication of an encryption algorithm for over two years. This is not the final decision in the case, just the denial of the dismissal motion, and judge's commentary.

Bernstein's motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the ITAR and AECA are unconstitutional because they are a prior restraint on protected publication and speech, that they are vague, and that they are overbroad. Also includes many interesting declarations submitted to the court by various people around the community about scientific communication, crypto, and the export laws.

Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, prepared by both sides in the case.

Robert Prior's declaration explaining the whole process by which the PGP Source Code book was created, published, and submitted for export control consideration.

The "proposed order" which, if signed by the judge, would put the preliminary injunction into effect.

Our legal arguments that a preliminary injunction should stop the Defendants from using the export laws against Prof. Bernstein or his students for a class on cryptography.

The stipulation proposed in letter from Bernstein's counsel asking the government to stipulate to not enforcing the Commerce Department regulations until they have been reviewed by the court for Constitutionality.

Addition to our original complaint, adding the Administration's new Commerce Department crypto export controls to the list of challenged laws and regulations.

Brief argument about why we should be permitted to amend the complaint.

Bernstein's opposition to the Government motion which asks the judge to reconsider her decision that the State Dept. crypto export controls are unconstitutional.

Short declaration in which Prof. Bernstein demonstrates conclusively that source code is communicative as well as functional, by supplying a short COBOL program that is easily readable and understandable by a person, as well as a computer.

to have even Judge Patel's narrowly stayed injunction completely stayed. They are trying to convince the Appeals court that the national security will be damaged if two pages of Snuffle code are posted to the Web.

Bernstein's brief opposing the govt. emergency motion for stay-pending-appeal of all relief granted by the District Court. Brief clearly shows that govt. has introduced no new arguments in its favor, and cannot meet the tests required for such a stay (among them a clear showing of liklihood of success on the merits of their appeal, and demonstrable irreparable harm if they don't get the say. The brief also takes the govt. to task for daring to suggest that because the govt. has censored Bernstein for 5 years it won't hurt him to be censored a little longer pending appeal.

Brief govt. motion for leave to provide the court a reply brief rebutting Bernstein's opposition.

Amicus brief filed by the Thomas Jefferson Center for Freedom of Expression

Amicus brief of Prof. Garrett Epps and other law professors and organizations, arguing that the crypto export controls are an unconstitutional prior restraint of publication, unsavable by the government's attempts to distinguish between one language and another, or to regulate on the basis of the functionality of the speech at issue (computer program code).

Prof. Bernstein (Appellee)'s main brief in the 9th Circuit appeal of the District Court ruling. Argues that the lower court applied the proper tests, that the crypto export regulations are an unconstitutional prior restraint, that they are also unconstitutional under several other First Amendment tests, and that the District Court's relief was appropriate.

Either by the same panel or by larger en banc review panel. An expected delaying tactic.

The government's rebuttal to Bernstein's response to the government motion for a rehearing.

Judge Hug's order granting the Government motion to Reschedule Oral Argument to determine whether there will be an en banc review and setting the date to March 21, 2000.

Bureau of Export Control's response to Bernstein's questions about the meaning of the new Jan. 14, 2000 changes to encryption "export" regulations.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is pleased to submit the following comments to
the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in response to the Request
for Public Comments on a Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, published in
the Federal Register of February 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 32, pages 8910-8911).