[10235] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: password-cracking by journalists...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (R. Hirschfeld)
Tue Jan 22 15:12:40 2002
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:00:20 -0500
Message-Id: <200201230200.VAA01453@home.unipay.nl>
From: "R. Hirschfeld" <ray@unipay.nl>
To: ptrei@rsasecurity.com
Cc: cryptography@wasabisystems.com, kmself@ix.netcom.com
In-reply-to:
<F504A8CEE925D411AF4A00508B8BE90A01E90BB0@exna07.securitydynamics.com>
(ptrei@rsasecurity.com)
Reply-To: ray@unipay.nl
> From: "Trei, Peter" <ptrei@rsasecurity.com>
> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:55:53 -0500
> The inclusion of the word 'effectively' presumes the existance of
> 'ineffective' technological measures, which it would be no crime
> to circumvent. Where, then, is the distinction?
17.1201 actually contains a definition:
(B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a
work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation,
requires the application of information, or a process or a
treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain
access to the work.
I confess that I can't tell whether this implies that everything is
effective or that nothing is.
Ray
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
