[10209] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: password-cracking by journalists...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karsten M. Self)
Mon Jan 21 00:00:53 2002
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:57:14 -0800
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com
Message-ID: <20020120205714.B5039@navel.introspect>
Mail-Followup-To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="z6Eq5LdranGa6ru8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <v0421010cb86ca9bc4254@[192.168.0.2]>; from reinhold@world.std.com on Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:23:49AM -0500
--z6Eq5LdranGa6ru8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
on Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:23:49AM -0500, Arnold G. Reinhold (reinhold@worl=
d.std.com) wrote:
> At 9:15 AM -0500 1/16/02, Steve Bellovin wrote:
> Another interesting question is whether the reporters and the Wall=20
> Street Journal have violated the DCMA's criminal provisions. The al=20
> Qaeda data was copyrighted (assuming Afghanistan signed one of the=20
> copyright conventions--they may not have), the encryption is arguably=20
> a "technological protection measure" and the breaking was done for=20
> financial gain.
>=20
> "17 USC 1204 (a) In General. - Any person who violates section 1201=20
> or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private=20
> financial gain -(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or=20
> imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first=20
> offense..."
Note that my reading the language of 1201 doesn't requre that the work
being accessed be copyrighted (and in the case of Afghanistan, there is
a real question of copyright status), circumvention itself is
sufficient, regardless of status of the specific work accessed:
17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A):
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under
this title.
=2E..if the measure controls access to _a_ work protected under 17 USC,
than _any_ circumvention is illegal, whether or not that circumvention
affects a protected work?
I don't see the statuatory exceptions as covering the case of the WSJ.
Peace.
--=20
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free
We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
--z6Eq5LdranGa6ru8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8S5+qOEeIn1XyubARAliYAJ9UQ4tQtgVCuoW9KfMe5r04hXlN7wCggaGc
70l1C2buBQcF/JW/+QdSvw4=
=gmaI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--z6Eq5LdranGa6ru8--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
