IP: Re: U.S. government says DeCSS is terrorware

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>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/