[9084] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rick Smith at Secure Computing)
Tue Jul 31 16:08:57 2001
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:31:37 -0500
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>,
Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
From: Rick Smith at Secure Computing <rick_smith@securecomputing.com>
Cc: David Jablon <dpj@world.std.com>,
Matt Blaze <mab@research.att.com>, cryptography@wasabisystems.com,
cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
In-Reply-To: <20010727181340.915F07B59@berkshire.research.att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Message-Id: <20010731165950.B386736D4A@mononoke.wasabisystems.com>
At 01:13 PM 7/27/2001, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>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.
Hmmm. What would happen if every "legitimate" cryptography researcher
routinely transmitted an announcement to every vendor of copy protection
telling them that the researcher was going to be 'researching' the vendor's
products?
Research is such a wonderful term. I suppose I'm doing some sort of
"cryptography research" just by looking at the bits that encode some sort
of protected content. I must guiltily confess that I've been doing security
long enough that I look with a skeptical eye at every "security
implementation" I see, even if it's just a security camera or a string of
barbed wire.
There are probably enough "cryptography researchers" out there that even a
large vendor won't feel tempted to harass them all proactively.
Rick.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
