Jun

7

Live and Let Spy


Posted by at 6:31 pm on June 7, 2011
Category: BIS

Spy VanThe Fayetteville Observer provides details of an ongoing investigation of Raleigh-based Law Enforcement Associates, Inc. by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) with respect to alleged unlicensed exports of surveillance equipment to Morocco, Egypt, the Netherlands, and Great Britain. The investigation started with the seizure of a van outfitted with covert listening gear that was destined for Morocco.

Alert readers will probably immediately wonder about BIS’s “no see through” rule, which looks at the proper classification of an item independently of its component parts. That rule is found as Interpretation 2 in section 770.2 of the Export Administration Regulations.

There are two requirements for the “no see through” rule to apply. First, the part must be physically integrated into the unit to be exported. Second, the parts must be:

normal and usual components of the machine or equipment being exported [and] the physical incorporation is not used as a device to evade the requirement for a license

The issue here is whether the “normal and usual component” requirement is met. The answer to that requires the answer to a more-or-less metaphysical question. If the item being exported is seen as a van, then arguably surreptitious listening devices are not normal and usual components (unless there is some dealer option I’ve missed). But, if the exported item is seen as a “surveillance van,” the listening devices are almost certainly normal and usual components. So to answer that question you’ll need to dig out your copy of Aristotle’s Metaphysics and reflect upon the difference between accident (συμβεβεκός) and essence (το τι ην ειναι). Good luck, as Plato used to say.

An alternate theory is that maybe BIS thinks that the van is itself the listening device covered by ECCN 5A980. That theory founders because that ECCN only covers items that are “primarily useful” for “surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.” My guess is that — without recourse to Aristotle — it is pretty easy to determine that the van is primarily useful for driving and, if sufficiently tricked out, for sleeping, not for surreptitious listening.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


5 Comments:


So they can’t export a surveillance van but defense contractors can export tractor trailer cargo containers outfitted with customizable mil systems?

Comment by Tim on June 8th, 2011 @ 12:07 pm

If the item being exported is seen as a “surveillance van” then it could be argued that it is primarily useful for surveillance. And if it does not have a big sign on the side saying “This van may be recording your conversation” then it could even be said to be surreptitious.

Comment by Imaginary on June 8th, 2011 @ 12:10 pm

Once again, bravo!

Comment by Chris W. on June 8th, 2011 @ 3:03 pm

@imaginary: Excellent point, although I still think a van is primarily useful for driving, whether called a surveillance van or not. Still, your argument may be the best one that BIS has. Of course, it would be nice if the ECCN were written to make this clearer.

Comment by Clif Burns on June 8th, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

I think BIS may have a good argument that the gear is not “physically incorporated” in the van if it is merely rack mounted, cable connected equipment. The 770.2 interpretation relates to whether to classify parts and components that are incorporated into an assembled machine. It was written to deal with situations like the incorporation of a 3A001 IC into a 4A994 computer, etc.
I think the provision you cite would be applicable to the engine, brakes, and seats of a van, because those are “parts and components” that are not really useful on their own. It probably would not be applied to additional, independently functional equipment the exporter put in the van. The equipment described would be an “end-item”, because it operates independently of the van. (While not defined in the EAR, the ITAR 121.8 definitions of “part”, “component”, and “end-item” would likely be instructive here.)
There may be some argument that the 2008 revisions to the definitions of “incorporation” for de minimis purposes could come into play, but the relationship between those provisions and 770.2 is not explicitly laid out in the regs. – DFO

Comment by DFO on June 9th, 2011 @ 1:38 pm