[free-sklyarov] An Alternative Line of Argumentation

Julian T. J. Midgley free-sklyarov at effector.xenoclast.org
Sun Jul 22 09:56:11 PDT 2001


On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> A mild addition: What happens when a company has decent (or at least
> better than crappy) products, security broken, DMCA prosecution happens?

If the security is broken, then by definition it was crappy (or at least,
relatively poor).  Furthermore, if it can be broken, it is in the best
interests of those whose works are published under these protection
mechanism for them to be made aware that it has been broken, so that they
know not to trust it any further.

Therefore, the line of reasoning still works.

(There is a separate issue here, which is that it is arguable that any
copyright protection mechanism that doesn't rely on tamperproof hardware
is insecure.)

Just because SSH is generally quite good, doesn't mean that those who find
bugs in it (as someone did recently, see bugtraq or slashdot) should be
prosecuted for 'breaking it'.  The same argument applies to copyright
protection mechanisms, independent of whether or not you think they are a
good idea.

Just out of interest, what makes something a 'copyright protection
mechanism'?  If I transfer the text of my book from computer A to computer
B using SSH, to prevent it being copied in useful form by anyone sniffing
packets in between A and B (and hence preventing those same people from
abusing my copyright), does this turn SSH into a copyright protection
mechanism?  If it does, does the SSH company have the right to prosecute
people in the states who point out bugs in SSH?  Do we all feel better off
knowing that we can't discuss the state of the security protocols we use
because we might be prosecuted for "circumventing copyright protection
mechanisms"?

Julian

-- 
Julian T. J. Midgley                    http://www.xenoclast.org
Cambridge, England.                       PGP Key ID: 0xBCC7863F







More information about the Free-sklyarov mailing list