Jump to content

Talk:International Traffic in Arms Regulations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

aAuthority to authorize

[edit]

The article states "International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is a set of United States government regulations that authorizes the President of the United States to control the export and import of defense-related material and services."

ITAR does not *authorize* the President to control munitions-related exports. ITAR implements the control. The authorization comes from the Arms Export Control Act.

See http://www.pmdtc.org/aeca.htm. Straight from the government. 134.192.45.141 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, citations 1 and 2 are switched —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.123.35 (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Penalties

[edit]

The 2 year prison and upto $100,000 fine could be mentioned.--Stone 14:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

Part of the controversy ought include exposure of the odd vagueness of ITAR. It makes a crime of exporting items that are on the munitions list (ML). ... "export" is clear enough... but determining if, for example a scientific paper contains design information on the ML is obscure. Effectively, those charged with administering ITAR do not themselves know. There are also apparently other regulations coming out of the US Commerce Office that are not as well known. It all makes for a mixed up mess of obscure and opaque regulations that seem to be hurting as much as helping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.139.190.35 (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--The regulations "coming out of the Commerce Department" are well known to lawyers and trade professionals. You are referring to the Export Administration Act and the resulting Export Administration Regulations and these have been in effect since 1979. EAA is 50 U.S.C 2410 and the Export Administration Regulations are 15 CFR §730-774--Magnushawk (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite needed

[edit]

It's great to see an article with so many references, but the overall style of this article is turgid and bureaucratic, as if it had been written by and for government lawyers. It would probably be improved by deleting 50% of the text, with no loss in informative content. 121a0012 (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. = U.S.A.???

[edit]

Hello, Thank for this article!

Could you please be more precise about U.S.?

Is it United States of America? Or U.S. is the group of States which involved in ITAR?

Many thank for your answer.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdi1325 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dual and Third Party Nationals Roth Case Bullet Point Deleted

[edit]

This entry of text is inappropriately placed and also remiss in details: "In 2008, Dr J Reece Roth of the University of Tennessee was convicted of breaches of the AECA because he had given access to USML items (plasma technology used for USAF UAVs) to a graduate students who was a national of the PRC (he had also carried a laptop computer containing USML items to the PRC, even though he did not access the items whilst in the PRC).[96]"

This bullet point entry needs to be deleted as this case, important as it is to ITAR history, has no place under the context of "Dual and Third Party Nationals". The graduate students in question were not U.S. Persons[1] but they were not considered dual or third country nationals... not within the commonly understood and industry-accepted definitions of dual nationals. These definitions of dual and third country nationals is that they are 1. located in a foreign country already (Roth's students were legally in the United States) and 2. the persons either are not citizens of the country in which they are residing (i.e. a Third Country National) or they hold additional citizenships in addition to the citizenship of the country in which they are residing.

--Magnushawk (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://knoxville.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/kx070109.html

Effect on the US satellite industry

[edit]

Could We Soon See the End of ITAR’s Chokehold on Space Exploration? about the Safeguarding United States Satellite Leadership and Security Act of 2011/HR 3288 mentions "according to The Space Review in 2006, U.S. Satellite Manufacturers have estimated losses from ‘$2.5 and $6.0 billion since 1999 due primarily to ITAR regulations.’" - Rod57 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference cleanup

[edit]

I just spent a solid 90 minutes cleaning up the references on this article. Whew. That was messy. There are now identified 19 dead links. If you can help find the correct citation or any other cleanup on these wretched references, that would be greatly appreciated. Nasa-verve (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" As a result, technology pertaining to satellites and launch vehicles became more carefully protected."

[edit]

This is an outright falsehood. It's a matter of historical record that post-Loral, President Clinton engaged in a full-court press to transfer huge amounts of previously restricted US dual-use high technology to the Peoples' Republic of China. Clinton personally signed over large amounts of missile guidance, reentry materials, sensitive machining and supercomputing capabilities and other sensitive items. When the Department of Defense (correction: State Department) objected to this virtual dismantling of restrictions, Clinton personally stripped DOD (correction: State) of this decision-making authority and transferred it to his political cronies in the Department of Commerce. Much of this technology has since, according to defense experts, been proliferated to Iraq, Iran and North Korea. http://alamo-girl.com/0041.htm catalogs, through credible mainstream sources, the incredible scope of Clinton's arguably treasonous empowering of the Chinese Communist military. The fact that Clinton received millions in illegal campaign contributions directly and indirectly from the Communist Chinese proves in many American minds that Clinton is guilty of treason most foul.65.49.186.5 (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)65.49.186.5 (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear passages

[edit]

Re: 

Files on a laptop carried overseas do not need to be opened overseas, and foreign persons do not need to have actual access to USML items on computer networks for a breach to occur.

So any foreigner can be accused of this "crime", even when having no access or copy? Zezen (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this needs clarification. Regarding access to items on a computer network, the passage prior that seems to imply it: 

Foreign employees working in the US cannot have access to the same network where ITAR data may be stored [...] [96]

is not backed up by the article cited. 220.245.29.38 (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homemade spacecraft?

[edit]

Hi, I also ran into the ITAR issues regarding "dual use" components.

Interestingly there is no theoretical reason I can't build a prototype 1/100 scale as this in itself would not violate anything but a craft with the power output needed to reach orbit would likely be included.

Wonder if the whole "special nuclear materials" clause would apply to a reactor which is based on the IEC originally designed by R Bussard but with modern high temperature superconductors and control computers to overcome some of the limitations of earlier designs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.8 (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying medical technology for scientific research?

[edit]

Hi, I ran into a similar problem here. Seems that repurposing now obsolete or faulty dental or flat plate X-ray scanning devices may violate ITAR at least in principle, however as the device(s) were legally exported from a country outside the US to another country outside the US it would surely be covered under international law governing exports. As neither country have signed or otherwise comply with ITAR or EAR I am not sure how this would apply though the technology originated in the US and other than software being restricted this is more of a licensing issue. I have contacted the company in question and they seem interested in my research as this particular application may well qualify as an inventive step if it can be made to work on a Raspberry Pi 4 or other single board computer. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.137.12 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations&oldid=1207728057"