[free-sklyarov] MSNBC story

[Tabinda N. Khan]

Quoting Ethan Straffin:

> LetÕs say a researcher suspects that a computer media player is acting as
> spyware - reporting back to the vendor what songs or movies are being
> played on the player, without disclosing that fact. Under the DMCA, the
> researcher must first obtain permission from the vendor before decrypting
> the transmissions. The researcher must then give the results to the
> company, and the results cannot be published or made available to the
> general public unless the company says O.K. If the vendor doesnÕt give
> research permission in the first place, the researcher is forbidden from
> using decryption tools to discover whether or not the vendor is acting in
> good faith.

This reminded me to post about another angle I've been
thinking about, which is getting in consumer advocacy groups
involved. Consumers Union (http://www.consumersunion.org/aboutcu/about.htm),
for example, tests many consumer products for safety,
reliability, comfort, etc. The results are published in the
U.S.-based magazine Consumer Reports. Note here: They are a
non-profit and do not benefit commercially from any of their
findings and they do not accept advertising. They are also a
fairly powerful and popular group in the U.S.

One of their main tasks is to test product claims. They have
been sued by companies in the past for pointing out problems
with products. The most recent, I believe was a lawsuit
brought on by Isuzu
(http://www.consumersunion.org/products/verdict.htm?Isuzu),
which CU won. 

I wonder how they would feel if they found out that they
couldn't test the encryption claims on consumer products
unless they got the company's permission first?

Tabinda 
--