[free-sklyarov] May be of interest. (fwd)

[Derek Gladding]

Hi Linda

First, can I thank you on behalf of everyone involved in the effort to
free Dmitry for taking the time to listen to what we have to say and
for informing Adobe of your feelings about the matter. It's much
appreciated.

I'll deal with Adobe's points one by one, as there are certain pertinent
facts that they have chosen to omit in their response. Hope you don't
mind me slightly reordering your email to suit the flow of what I have
to say ...

[Adobe]
> 1. In the case of Acrobat, when Adobe was made aware of the security
> breach, we fixed the problem immediately. The Russian company did NOT
> notify us prior to commercial selling their program.

Elcomsoft have been in business selling this kind of software for some
time (ironically one of their best customers is the organisation that
arrested Dmitry - the FBI.)

In Russia, it is illegal to sell software that prevents the user from
making a backup for personal use - so, in their home country, Elcomsoft
are not only behaving totally legally, but are providing a means for
people to exercise a right they have been granted by law.

In the US, the software was marketed at eBook *publishers*, not users,
as a means of testing the security of products such as Adobe's. You may
(quite reasonably) doubt this assertion - however, apart from the
statements to that effect from Elcomsoft (both before and after Dmitry's
arrest), consider: (a) they were selling their product for $99, considerably
more than the price for a healthy stack of conventionally-acquired
eBooks, and (b) the software requires that the user already has the
password to the book it is being used on - it is not, as many people
have been implying - a means for "stealing" books that you haven't
already bought.

So, yes, Elcomsoft did not inform Adobe that they were selling the
software - but my personal opinion is that they had no reason to. Given
that they were selling a tool for publishers to test Adobe's product
(remember, this tool would do *nothing* without the user knowing the
password they got when purchasing the book) - why should they ?

I evaluate computer equipment all the time as part of my job, and I'm
certainly not going to ask permission from each and every manufacturer
each time I look under the hood to find out if they're telling the
truth or just giving me marketing spin.

As far as claiming to have "fixed the problem immediately" ... although
I am not a cryptography expert, many people in the field whose opinions
I respect have described their "fix" as being purely cosmetic.


> 2. In order to protect all E-book authors' intellectual property (not
> Adobe's) we asked the Justice Dept's help in stopping the sale of the
> Security Cracking Code that compromised the ebook format. This was after
> our unsuccessful attempts to work with the company first.

After Adobe complained to Elcomsoft's US agent, Elcomsoft asked them
to cease US sales of the software. To me, that is not an "unsuccessful"
result for Adobe. This happened on the 28th June, and is documented in
the criminal complaint:

http://www.usaondca.com/press/assets/applets/2001_07_17_sklyarov.pdf

The criminal complaint was signed and dated 10th July 2001, 12 days
after Elcomsoft ceased US sales.


> 3. When the sale of the program stopped, Adobe's interests were satisfied.

Dmitry was arrested on the 16th of July, eighteen days *after* "Adobe's
interests were satisfied."


>
> 4. Adobe had NOTHING to do with the arrest of Dimitry. This was a
> unilateral decision of the Justice Dept. We were as surprised at the
> arrest as everyone else. We have no influence with the Justice Dept as
> to who they prosecute under United States criminal law.

This is either extreme spin, or a demonstration of extreme ignorance of
the powers that the Justice Department have. After the complaint was
received, Dmitry *had* to be either arrested or left a free man. What
other outcome could Adobe have expected ?


>
> 5. When White Hat security experts notify us of possible weaknesses in
> security, we work with them, thank them, and fix the problems as soon as
> possible.

As discussed above, there is no reason that Elcomsoft should have worked
directly with Adobe - after all, in their home country, it is their products
that are legal and Adobe's that are illegal.

> 6. We have joined the "Electronic Freedom Foundation" in calling
> for the release of Dimitry.

As I'm sure you're aware, this happened immediately after extreme pressure
was applied to Adobe. I find it difficult to believe that they would have
done
the same purely as an act on conscience.

As a side note, the correct name for the organisation is "Electronic
Frontier
Foundation". To me, this seems indicative of the level of respect that Adobe
holds for those that they have "joined" in "calling for the release of
Dimitry(sic)."




> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> Date: Thursday, July 26, 2001 1:24 PM -0700
> From: Linda <kat7 at kats-korner.com>
> To: "nicehair at boycottadobe.com" <nicehair at boycottadobe.com>
> Subject: May be of interest.
>
>
> I don't quite have a complaint about your website ... in fact I did write
> the people at Adobe as you suggested ... letter follows.
> I did receive a letter in response and of course their story is a bit
> different than what you have to say. As a citizen who does not know who is
> right or who is wrong in this case ... it would be nice if the other side
> of the story were printed ...

Adobe's comments were posted immediately to the free-sklyarov list for all
those involved to read, and are available on the web in the list archives
for casual browsers to look at and consider.

> if indeed it is accurate.

I hope we have managed to convince you that it is, at best, a "constructive
interpretation of the truth."

> As a logical thinker I am wondering why the justice department is involved
> in this if Adobe is not behind it all ... what else might they be hanging
> on to that they think this young man has done?

Now that more groups are involved there are too many agendas in play to
guess the overall motive.

We can just do our best to help Dmitry get home safely to his family
(who, by the way, have had several offers of travel to the US but have
turned them all down as they are too scared to enter the country -
which, to me, is a rather shameful reflection on the state
of affairs).



> Linda Porasso
> --------------------------------------
>

Thanks again Linda for taking the time to read what we have to say and
for giving us a chance to reply to Adobe's comments.

- Derek