Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Linux kernel security fixes censored by the DMCA

[Stephen L Johnson <sjohnson(at)monsters.org>]

> I was walking through the "why would linux security patches constitute a
> DMCA risk" logic and this was I came up with.
> 
[snip]
> QED -- the next time Alan visits the US, the FBI could visit him if he
> does (c).
> 
> I wish I could find hole in that simple minded logic (though it is drawn
> from the style of the FBI complaint against Sklyarov).  What bothers me
> is that this logic could be extended to a "rescue" floppy that boots a
> system and grants instant root access to all present hard disks --
> though the counter logic would be that anyone with physical access to a
> multi-user server better have authority to be there.  However, under the
> logic of the DMCA (and the DeCSS and Sklyarov cases) the legitimate uses
> of a technology are irrelevant if what the "device" does is "circumvent"
> and a rescue floppy certainly does that.  Other problems would be "key
> recovery" or "passwd crack" software -- both are useful tools of "white
> hat" cracking.  However, once one releases that all user files are
> copyrighted works -- then all tools that do passwd bypass (or recovery)
> through any encryption or other system are "circumvention devices".
> 
> This of course brings me back to my initial worry.... just how are we
> supposed to get our jobs done without legal liability and risk of felony
> charges.
> 

I had been trying to figure out this same issue myself. But you have hit it 
perfectly. Your logic is impeccable. It's a lot clearer then that authority 
morass in the 2600 case.

Alan's right to be fearful. All it would take is one (insert adjective of 
choice) D.A. to try it.

After reading your post, I'm started to get worried about legal liability 
myself. I administer a lot of *NIX systems including a lot of e-mail servers. 
It's quite a nightmare possibility.

Stephen L Johnson <sjohnson@monsters.org>