[9058] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Fri Jul 27 18:39:26 2001
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Cc: David Jablon <dpj@world.std.com>,
Matt Blaze <mab@research.att.com>, cryptography@wasabisystems.com,
cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:13:40 -0400
Message-Id: <20010727181340.915F07B59@berkshire.research.att.com>
In message <20010727015656.A22910@cluebot.com>, 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 that it's not broad
>enough, and certainly 2600 found in the DeCSS case that the judge
>wasn't convinced by their arguments, but at least it's a shield of
>sorts. See below.
It's certainly not broad enough -- it protects "encryption" research,
and the definition of "encryption" in the law is meant to cover just
that, not "cryptography". And the good-faith effort to get permission
is really an invitation to harrassment, since you don't have to
actually get permission, merely seek it.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
