[4629] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
FW: FW: Bernstein Opinion Up
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Elyn Wollensky)
Fri May 7 14:40:10 1999
From: Elyn Wollensky <EWollensky@idgbooks.com>
To: cryptography@c2.net
Cc: karn@qualcomm.com, Defcon Stuff <dc-stuff@dis.org>
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:37:38 -0500
Here's Lance Rose's take on the Bernstein decision:
Elyn
Elyn Wollensky
Programming Development Group
IDG Technology Publishing
900 Third Avenue NYC, NY 10022
voice: +1.212.381.4517 fax: +1.212.381.4501
-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Rose [ mailto:lawcasters@earthlink.net
<mailto:lawcasters@earthlink.net> ]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 8:58 AM
To: Elyn Wollensky
Cc: lawcasters@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: FW: Bernstein Opinion Up
Elyn -
Sorry to say, but the 9th Circuit took the dumb approach I mentioned in =
my
earlier post.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Their whole approach to "source code as speech" =
is misguided -
unless we are talking about
people talking to machines!=A0 Source code is specifically designed and
constrained to make a computer operate in exactly specified ways.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 While programmers and cryptographers may exchange =
source code to
understand each other's techniques, etc., this is like potters =
exchanging
pottery.=A0 The discussion between people, like the discussion between
potters, is first amendment protectable, but this does not render the =
code
itself protected under 1st amendment.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The 9th circuit made the dumbest possible mistake =
- they neglected
to take account of context.=A0 The context includes: the reference to
"language" as describing source code has nothing to do with
human-communicative speech, it's only a special purpose corruption =
adopted
especially for the computer industry; the fact that source code is
human-usable as opposed to object code does not imply that it's humans
talking to humans, but only that source code is the user controls level
of making computers work; and the fact that source code is expressed as =
text
is only a reflection of our own current limitations as humans, in that =
we
need symbolic reference systems to direct computer operations - the =
fact
that we reach for the easiest, broad purpose reference system that =
works,
originally derived from human language, does not turn our use of this =
tool
in computer programming into human-to-human speech (and in fact, there =
is a
broad movement to non-text speech, exemplified currently by visual
object-oriented programming, and represented in its ideal form by Jaron
Lanier's effort to create a non-symbol-mediated computer environment).
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 I'm all for protecting encryption stuff under the =
1st amendment.=A0
But let's do it the right way, not the dumb way . . .
- Lance
At 03:54 PM 5/6/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Here's the URL for the Bernstein/crypto decision-
>Way cool. Looks like sanity is starting to kick back the rules of
>import-export decisions. That or everyone w/money in the IPO-internet
market
>are beginning to shake in their boots from Warren Buffett's =
announcement
>yesterday (re: the overpricing of the i-market & need for a =
correction).
>Whichever- it's all good :)
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Young [ mailto:jya@pipeline.com <mailto:jya@pipeline.com> ]
>Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 3:29 PM
>To: cryptography@c2.net
>Subject: Bernstein Opinion Up
>
>
>Thanks to Cindy Cohn:
>
>=A0=A0 http://jya.com/bernstein-9th.htm =
<http://jya.com/bernstein-9th.htm>=20
>
>Or from the 9th Court of Appeals:
>
>
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/f606ac175e010d64882566eb=
0065
<http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/f606ac175e010d64882566e=
b006
5>=20
>8118/febd2452a8a4d79b8825676900685b71?OpenDocument
>
>
>
