[6822] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: injunction issued against cphack
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David G. Koontz)
Sat Mar 18 11:04:55 2000
Message-ID: <38D32C5C.211967F3@ariolimax.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:12:28 -0800
From: "David G. Koontz" <koontz@ariolimax.com>
Reply-To: koontz@no_spam_ariolimax.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cryptography@c2.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Steven M. Bellovin" wrote:
>
> The AP reports that a U.S. judge has issued an injunction against the
> Canadian and Swedish authors of cphack, the program that unlocks and
> displays the blocked site list from CyberPatrol. The order extends to
> distribution by others as well, including -- according to the plaintiff's
> attorney -- all mirror sites.
>
> Even without questions of the reach of U.S. law, this is a preposterous
> ruling. If you add them in, it's insane.
Right up there with a grade school class voting on the sex of a
hamster, then being surprised by little boy hampsters having
babies. (Hey, it ain't Shakespeare, but it has a certain
democratic flavor to it.)
I've seen conflicting reports on who the injunction affects.
Is this a bit of FUD on the part of the attorney, or perhaps
a misquote? I was also under the impression you had to be named
in an injunction to be bound by it.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35038,00.html
--
remove "no_spam_" from Reply-to address
