password-cracking by journalists...

[(Mr) Lyn R. Kennedy]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:55:53AM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
> > 
> >    17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A):
> >    No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
> >    effectively controls access to a work protected under
> >    this title.
> 
> I'm sure I'm picking nits here (and I praise God every day that
> I Am Not A L*wy*r), but what does 'effectively' mean? If it can be
> broken, was it effective? What level of work is required to make
> it an 'effective technological measure'? If the standard is 'anything,
> including rot13', then why is the word present in the rule at all?

The "effectively" is used to make the law "effectively" vague and confusing
like the ECPA. This means the prosecutor can convict you of anything.

A guy in Tulsa was tried and convicted in federal court on 27 counts under 
the ECPA. The judge studied the law for months before sentencing and
finally overturned all counts on the grounds the defendant had not violated
the law. If judges have difficulty understanding laws, we have no chance.


BTW, IANAL and this is from news reports, I haven't found the actual ruling.


-- 

  Please note new e-mail address....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 73,            E-mail       | lrkn at earthlink.net                      |
| Lyn Kennedy    webpage      | http://home.earthlink.net/~lrkn         |
| K5QWB          pony express = P.O. Box 5133, Ovilla, TX, USA 75154    |
---Livin' on an information dirt road a few miles off the superhighway---



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