220504

amanfromMars 1 Wed 4 May 04:40 [2205040440] ....... asks again on https://forums.theregister.com/forum/2/2022/05/02/surveillance_security_is_bullying/

Re: What the Holy FCUK ??????

I have been told although it is difficult to believe, and it would be nice if it can be categorically confirmed, that the bods in the Houses of Parliament have some sort of unholy agreement with that and those who really should know better, that has them specifically exempt from Security and Secret Intelligence Service surveillance/monitoring.

Hmmmm? That statement, and I have assumed that there are a least a few El Reg commentators who would certainly know for sure, has remained too long here unanswered. It is a simple enough question though requiring a clear enough Yes or No or Sometimes Occasionally or Occasionally Often answer, so it does have one a’pondering and a’wondering.

Is it supposed to be sort of a Top Secret State Secret expected covered by the Non-Disclosure Agreement perpetuated by the likes of an Official Secrets Act?

............................................

Graham C [2205041331] ........ seeking some sort of clarification on a sensitive matter which almost certainly would likely impinge upon issues discussed on https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/5/3/industrial-base-should-prepare-for-export--control-reforms

Hi, Christopher Stagg,

There is significantly more to consider with particular specific regard to the information concerning developments engaged in critical and emerging technologies which you have commented on in the paragraph .......

"However, some companies may need to act more proactively. If a company is engaged in critical and emerging technologies, then there might be a greater concern now as to how it might be affected by the State Department’s ongoing reviews — and whether it should obtain official commodity jurisdiction rulings before any rulemaking occurs."

...... and especially so whenever leading developments in a primary field of such international concern may be wholly foreign based and not US proprietary intellectual property, and thus not be fundamentally affected by the State Department's ongoing reviews.

One such as can easily enough be initially found out about on certain pages of the Internet/World Wide Web, and which has both dual use military and civil application potential and good and not so good and even very bad use possibilities is NEUKlearer HyperRadioProACTive IT, which is now shared here for further interest and comment because its developers already at the earliest of stages readily recognised there can all too easily be extremely valid concerns about it by a great many because of what can be relatively easily done with command and control of it with IT and AI expertise, which of course will be to many no more than just a wilful fanciful claim by those leading with developments until proven and evidenced more fully with future flash crash testing and live current mainstream running.

However, nevertheless, if it is to be a concern for ITAR and/or USML, those active in regulation of IP in those fields are now pretty well advised and suitably forewarned and invited to engage with its expanding surreal growth, ongoing development and developer programs for the very reasonable assumption has been made that all virtually shared here for posting on National DEFENSE Magazine in reply to "Viewpoint: Industrial Base Should Prepare for Export Control Reforms" will find its way to wherever it needs to be, wherever that be at home or abroad, local or foreign and alien.

...................................................