Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Re: U.S. government says DeCSS is terrorware
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 18:39:29 -0400
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 13:35:23 -0700 From: Seth David Schoen <schoen () loyalty org> To: farber () cis upenn edu David Farber writes:U.S.: DVD Decoder is Terrorware By Declan McCullagh (declan () wired com) 6:16 a.m. May 2, 2001 PDT NEW YORK -- To the U.S. government, a DVD descrambling utility is akin to terrorware that could crash airplanes, disrupt hospital equipment and imperil human lives.Since the U.S. still has no Official Secrets Act, telling people how to commit serious crimes is still legal, unless you are conspiring or aiding someone in committing an actual crime (or breaching a special duty, etc.). Investigative journalists are constantly describing and exposing vulnerabilities and risks, even, sometimes, in military security. A recent "Boondocks" cartoon showed a student asking why it is legal to publish plans for pipe bombs on the Internet, but (supposedly) not information on decrypting DVDs. Although some politicians don't like it, it's legal to know how to make pipe bombs, it's legal to teach the public how to make pipe bombs, it's just not legal to make the pipe bombs (without proper pyrotechnics licenses) or to use them in a terrorist attack. Mr. Alter's comparison is extreme hyperbole. Still, I think U.S. legal precedent would support publishing details of serious risks and threats (which the breaking of CSS isn't), including computer software which could be used to exploit them. On the other hand, giving information out _in order to facilitate a crime_ is never protected. If I know that someone is trying to build a bomb, even providing a standard chemistry or engineering textbook might be actionable. Once again: if I know that somebody is planning to commit a burglary, simply looking up an address in a phone book could make me an accomplice. Intent is critical, and the burden of proof should be on the organization trying to suppress speech. With their "course of conduct" arguments, the government and the MPAA cleverly ask us to overlook that magazines and web sites _aren't_ generally trying to facilitate crime by offering information to the public. And, by outlawing the information itself, they would relieve plaintiffs of the burden to prove otherwise. Jack Valenti said so in a speech on February 7: The minute you give one professor the keys to the kingdom, you're going to be ransacked. -- Seth David Schoen <schoen () loyalty org> | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
Current thread:
- IP: Re: U.S. government says DeCSS is terrorware David Farber (May 03)