password-cracking by journalists...

[Will Rodger]

>This law has LOTS of unintended consequences.  That is why many people 
>find it so disturbing.  For example, as I read it, and I am *not* a 
>lawyer, someone who offered file decryption services for hire to people 
>who have a right to the data, e.g. the owner lost the password, or a 
>disgruntled employee left with the password, or a parent wants to see what 
>was stored on their child's hard drive, could still be charged with 
>committing a felony.

If it's your copyright, it's still yours. The law recognizes that.


>As for the legal situation before the DMCA,  the Supreme Court issued a 
>ruling last year in a case, Barniki v. Volper,  of a journalist who 
>broadcast a tape he received of an illegally intercepted cell phone 
>conversation between two labor organizers.  The court ruled that the 
>broadcast was permissible.

The journalist received the information from a source gratis. That's 
different from paying for stolen goods, hiring someone to eavesdrop, or 
breaking the law yourself. The First Amendment covers a lot, in this case.


>   So the stolen property argument you give might not hold. The change 
> wrought by the DMCA is that it makes trafficking in the tools needed to 
> get at encrypted data, regardless whether one has a right to (there is an 
> exemption for law enforcement) unlawful.

There's language governing that in the statute. Trafficking in tools 
specifically designed to break a given form of copy protection is one 
thing. The continued availability of legal tools for cryptanalysis and 
legitimate password cracking is another. As bad as the DMCA is, it's not 
_that_ bad.

Will




---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com