At 12:14 PM -0700 8/1/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I keep seeing words like "bona fide" and "legitimate" used as modifiers
>for "cryptographic researcher." The DMCA states :
>
>(3)(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is
>employed, or is appropriately trained or exper
I keep seeing words like "bona fide" and "legitimate" used as modifiers
for "cryptographic researcher." The DMCA states :
(3)(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is
employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of
encryption technology; and
Isn'
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Rick Smith at Secure Computing wrote:
> I had suggested that a large number of crypto researchers take the
> proactive (or rather, prophylactic) step of informing *all* vendors of copy
> protection that the researchers are interested in studying the encryption
> used in the
I had suggested that a large number of crypto researchers take the
proactive (or rather, prophylactic) step of informing *all* vendors of copy
protection that the researchers are interested in studying the encryption
used in their products. The notion of this would be that such an act by a
lar
Alan wrote:
>
> On Friday 27 July 2001 11:13, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Declan McCullagh writes:
> > >One of those -- and you can thank groups like ACM for this, if my
> > >legislative memory is correct -- explicitly permits encryption
> > >research. You can ar
At 12:00 AM 07/31/2001 -0700, Alan wrote:
>I guess we *do* have the best government money can buy. We just were not the
>ones writing the checks...
Naahhh... You ought to be able to buy a much better government than that. :-)
That actually is part of the problem - governments writing laws abo
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Rick Smith at Secure Computing wrote:
> There are probably enough "cryptography researchers" out there that even a
> large vendor won't feel tempted to harass them all proactively.
All they have to do is make a messy example out of one or two. (It also
helps if you can get
On Friday 27 July 2001 11:13, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Declan McCullagh writes:
> >One of those -- and you can thank groups like ACM for this, if my
> >legislative memory is correct -- explicitly permits encryption
> >research. You can argue fairly persuasively t
I'm really not completely clued-in to all of the publishing options but
my gut instinct says that the more rapid and widespread the dispersal
the better. The originator of proscribed information needs to be
anonymous but it seems that if the recipients are many and diverse then
the level of guilt
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote:
>>Not a problem -- as long as what you're making available to the
>>public at DefCon is not a program that script kiddies can download
>>and use to break stuff.
>
>What's a 'program' in the above sentence? Is source a program? Source
>without the main(
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken a node keeps a reference ( even if only temorarily
> ) to the originating node when data is added. So if I publish
> sooper-infringer.tar.gz and the neighboring node that gets it is a
> narc I'm screwed. Identify your dissidents a
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken a node keeps a reference ( even if only temorarily
> ) to the originating node when data is added. So if I publish
> sooper-infringer.tar.gz and the neighboring node that gets it is a
> narc I'm screwed. Identify your dissidents a
>get good leverage that will ultimately help the most people. But some
>people -- I predict many people -- are going to twist in the wind or
>in prison for years, before the courts or Congress are pushed into
>fixing the havoc caused by rabid copyright maximalists. So what if it
It was never an
> Much of the hysteria regarding the DMCA's supposed ability to quash free
> speech by cryptographic researchers is being whipped up by opponents
> to the DMCA who are misrepresenting the DMCA in a calculated fashion in
> order to promote opposition.
The anonymous poster's legal analysis was not
At 07:08 AM 7/28/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote:
>
>>>You can create an executable, with source code, package it up and
>>>send it to the copyright owner with a note that says "your protection
>>>is broken: here's the proof."
>>
>>How about dropping them
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote:
>>You can create an executable, with source code, package it up and
>>send it to the copyright owner with a note that says "your protection
>>is broken: here's the proof."
>
>How about dropping them a note to send an engineer to DefCon?
Not a problem --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 27 July 2001 20:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ObPuzzle: You are in a room with three monkeys. One has a
> banana, one has a stick, one has nothing. Which primate is the
> smartest?
ANSWER:
The monkey without anything.
EXPLANATION:
The mo
On 27 Jul 2001, at 17:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> George wrote :
> As for Mr. Felton's run-in with this abomination, did he sign any sort
> of contract with the music guys to get the materials he needed to do his
> work? That might change how we view his situation relative to DMCA.
>
> Mike
At 02:16 PM 7/27/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>
>You can present your paper at defcon, as long as there's not an
>executable.
>
No executable, but source. Source code is how some people
communicate. Building an executable is another (intentional)
behavior. Using that executable is another
George wrote :
>> `(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person
>> qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be
>> considered shall include--
>> `(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was
>> disseminated, and if so, whether
> I think a lot of the flaws with the DMCA could be fixed by allowing
> an exemption for a "notice period" -- one year after you notify them
> that their crypto is broken, they've had enough time to fix it --
> and if they haven't fixed it, they deserve what they get.
>
>
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 06:36:53PM -0400, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
[..]
>
> If you read the language carefully, you will see that 1201g only
> permits *circumvention* as part of cryptographic research (and then
> only under limited circumstances). There is nothing in the law that
> allows pu
... not especially crypto related, but ...
There is a serious problem with a law that broadly encroaches on freedom of
speech, patched-up with vague and complex exceptions that only a lawyer can
decipher. Worse still, interpretation here seems to require as-yet-undetermined
case law.
A patchwor
>> `(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person
>> qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be
>> considered shall include--
>> `(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was
>> disseminated, and if so, whether it was dissemin
freenet.
Unless I'm mistaken a node keeps a reference ( even if only temorarily )
to the originating node when data is added. So if I publish
sooper-infringer.tar.gz and the neighboring node that gets it is a narc
I'm screwed. Identify your dissidents and put in informants as
neighbors. Admittedl
At 01:56 AM 7/27/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>The DMCA may be bad, but it's not *that* bad. It contains a broad
>prohibition against circumvention ("No person shall circumvent a
>technological measure that effectively controls access") and then has
>a bunch of exceptions.
I'm getting sick
Yikes, editors pay me a few dollars a word to research and write this kinda
stuff. Why don't you ask for tips and compile them, if you're interested?
-Declan
At 10:15 AM 7/27/01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Declan,
>
>What are today's options for anonymous publication? A good summary might
> `(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person
> qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be
> considered shall include--
> `(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was
> disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated
If you say "Declan, what is the answer to this question?" it is reasonable
to conclude you're asking me. I'm happy to participate in debate, but if
you want me to perform research, evaluate performance, and compile results,
that's closer to real work. TANSTAAFL.
-Declan
At 10:31 AM 7/27/01 -
Un-yikes yourself. Since the mail goes to a list I wasn't necessarily
asking you to do the job - I'm interested enough that if tips filter in
I'll check them out and package them nicely in an FAQ. That is assuming
one does not already exist.
Mike
Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> Yikes, editors pay m
Like I said, I'm not defending the DMCA. I was merely correcting
the fellow who didn't know the exemption (of sorts) existed.
-Declan
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 09:18:38AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Declan,
>
> It's pretty bad.
>
> The exemption (2) only applies if the intent is to advanc
At 12:30 PM -0400 7/27/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Like I said, I'm not defending the DMCA. I was merely correcting
>the fellow who didn't know the exemption (of sorts) existed.
>
Not being an expert on the DCMA, I'm still trying to square the
notion of an "exemption for research" (my words, su
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:25:42AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> The courts will no doubt have their say, but right now the DCMA sure
> looks to be a ban on publication of research.
Yeah. Felten could have gone forward and almost certainly not been
sued, but his co-authors were far more skittish.
The
Declan,
It's pretty bad.
The exemption (2) only applies if the intent is to advance the state of
the art in general or in the development of products. The means to
negate the exemption look like they're deeply embedded in the code.
(2)(A) is certainly easy to meet - woohoo.
(2)(B) is not too ba
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:53:02 -0400
From: David Jablon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Matt Blaze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Criminalizing crypto criticism
At 07:13 PM 7/25/01 -0400, Matt Blaze wrote:
>(Fortunately, as fa
35 matches
Mail list logo
