password-cracking by journalists...

[Arnold G. Reinhold]

At 8:57 PM -0800 1/20/02, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>...
>Note that my reading the language of 1201 doesn't requre that the work
>being accessed be copyrighted (and in the case of Afghanistan, there is
>a real question of copyright status), circumvention itself is
>sufficient, regardless of status of the specific work accessed:
>
>    17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A):
>    No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
>    effectively controls access to a work protected under
>    this title.
>
>...if the measure controls access to _a_ work protected under 17 USC,
>than _any_ circumvention is illegal, whether or not that circumvention
>affects a protected work?
>
>I don't see the statuatory exceptions as covering the case of the WSJ.
>


Circumvention is defined in 17 USC 1201 (a) (3):

"As used in this subsection - (A) to ''circumvent a technological 
measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an 
encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or 
impair a technological measure, without the authority of the 
copyright owner; ...

I'd read that as implying that the law is talking about a copyrighted 
work; otherwise if someone encrypts text in the public domain, no one 
would be allowed to decrypt it. But an aggressive prosecutor might 
adopt your interpretation. It's a very poorly written law with great 
potential for abuse.


Arnold Reinhold
Who is not a lawyer and is not offering legal advice



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