Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 MARCH 2005

Deconstructing Encryption: Department of Commerce Revises Encryption Regulations

Reed Smith
Explore more from Reed Smith

The export of encryption products, software, and technology has long been one of the most opaque sectors of export controls. While U.S. origin encryption is tightly controlled, exporters can avail themselves of numerous exceptions depending on such factors as the overall strength of the encryption, the type of entity involved (government versus non-government), and the location of the end-user. Over the past few years, the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security ("BIS") generally

United StatesStrategy
Leigh Hansson
Leigh Hansson
William Pomeranz
William Pomeranz
Author LinkedIn connections

The export of encryption products, software, and technology has long been one of the most opaque sectors of export controls. While U.S. origin encryption is tightly controlled, exporters can avail themselves of numerous exceptions depending on such factors as the overall strength of the encryption, the type of entity involved (government versus non-government), and the location of the end-user. Over the past few years, the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security ("BIS") generally has sought to simplify these regulations and ease the export restrictions on encryption. Its most recent attempt occurred on December 9, 2004, when BIS issued a final rule (the "Rule") further revising the encryption regulations. As discussed below, while some of the changes were more cosmetic in nature, BIS introduced certain substantive changes as well:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

See more popular content from

Article

The Colorado AI Law You Prepared For Is Gone, And The Rulemaking Comment Window Closes October 26

If your Colorado compliance program is built around impact assessments, it is built for a statute that will never take effect. Senate Bill 24-205, the first comprehensive state AI statute in the country, was scheduled to take effect June 30, 2026. Colorado instead repealed and replaced it with Senate Bill 26-189, signed May 14, 2026, whose principal requirements apply to consequential decisions made on or after January 1, 2027.
United StatesStrategy
Jones Walker LLP
Jones Walker LLP
Article

White House Announces AI Responsibility Accord, Executive Orders, And Super Intelligence Task Force

The Trump Administration has introduced a voluntary regulatory framework for artificial intelligence through the White House Accord on Super Intelligence, signed by six leading tech companies. This new approach emphasizes corporate self-policing with safety audits and board oversight, while simultaneously rebranding government AI terminology and establishing a new interagency coordination force. How will this light-touch regulatory strategy balance innovation with mounting safety concerns as AI capabilities
United StatesStrategy
Crowell & Moring LLP
Crowell & Moring LLP
Article

The Protect College Sports Act Clears The Senate: What Stakeholders Need To Know

The U.S. Senate has passed the Protect College Sports Act by a 77-22 vote, marking the first time Congress has approved comprehensive federal legislation governing college athletics. This sweeping bill establishes a uniform NIL framework, locks in the House v. NCAA revenue-sharing model with caps and retention funds, grants limited antitrust exemptions, and imposes new transfer restrictions, health mandates, and reporting requirements.
United StatesStrategy
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

California SB 574 Would Bar Attorneys From Delegating The Practice Of Law To Generative AI

California Senate Bill 574 proposes a groundbreaking statutory framework that would prohibit attorneys from delegating legal practice to generative artificial intelligence, while imposing disclosure requirements and verification standards across litigation, arbitration, and court filings. The legislation raises fundamental questions about how traditional definitions of "the practice of law" apply to AI-augmented legal work, from document review to contract analysis. If signed by Governor Newsom, California
United StatesStrategy
A&O Shearman
A&O Shearman
Article

Contract Lifecycle Management And Why Legal Teams Need It

Contract lifecycle management has become the most widely adopted legal technology tool in corporate legal departments, addressing fundamental challenges around contract visibility, workflow automation, and risk management. Legal operations expert Jeff Reisner breaks down the CLM landscape, implementation considerations, and why this technology has emerged as the foundational piece most legal teams tackle first when modernizing their operations.
United StatesStrategy
Axiom
Axiom
Article

Ankura CTIX FLASH Update – September 22, 2026

This collection of insights from Ankura explores critical challenges facing multiple industries in 2026, from cybersecurity threats targeting AI assistants to the evolving landscape of freight capacity, cryptocurrency enforcement, and healthcare compliance. The articles examine how organizations navigate regulatory complexity, operational constraints, and emerging risks across financial services, logistics, healthcare, and technology sectors.
United StatesStrategy
Ankura Consulting Group LLC
Ankura Consulting Group LLC