Although I am Australian, I’m also bound by ITAR through treaty. So… while my own advice from my government is that there are no rules under ITAR that prevent someone from looking through a NOD, the US government isn’t of the same opinion. Two groups of legal experts, same question, different results. Go figure. But here’s why you need to be careful.
US Prosecution of ITAR violations are capricious, and very very severe. People who have done perfectly innocent things that no one would consider a violation have been prosecuted and served time over ITAR violations. ITT ( Now Excelis ) was fined 20 million dollars for ITAR violations over a simple piece of glass with a coating, called a LIF, that’s probably the worst kept secret in the world. Everyone in the US who deals with ITAR is wary of prosecution, so the line drawn around what is OK and what is not is drawn very wide -
§ 120.32 Major non-NATO ally.
Major non-NATO ally, as defined in section 644(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2403(q)), means a country that is designated in accordance with section 517 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321(k)) as a major non-NATO ally for purposes of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq. and 22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.). The following countries are designated as major non-NATO allies: Afghanistan (see § 126.1(g) of this subchapter), Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Republic of Korea. Taiwan shall be treated as though it were designated a major non-NATO ally.
！学习了