[IP] any answers for Dan

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Dan Gillmor <dgillmor@sjmercury.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 18:46:07 -0800
To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: Re: <[IP]> MS Final Decree - interesting...

Dave,

Here's what I said on this last May.

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/dan_gillm
or/ejournal/3223506.htm

> I continue to believe the most important part of the section in question is
> the one that isn't being discussed. It says Microsoft may not release
> information about "any API, interface or other information related to any
> Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency
> of competent jurisdiction."
> 
> Neither the Justice Department nor Microsoft has given me a straight answer
> about what this means. The company offered nonsense. The government promised
> to discuss it but then didn't keep the promise.
> 
> What if this means Microsoft is party to a U.S. government back-door into
> Windows, for spying and surveillance purposes, that the government
> understandably wants to keep secret?
> 
> Wouldn't you like to know the answer? I would.

Dan


> From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
> Reply-To: dave@farber.net
> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 19:03:28 -0500
> To: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
> Subject: <[IP]> MS Final Decree - interesting...
> 
> 
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Richard Forno <rforno@infowarrior.org>
> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 16:18:24 -0500
> To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
> Subject: MS Final Decree - interesting...
> 
> 
> Page 7 of CKK's Final Decree on Microsoft --
> 
> 
> No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
> 
> 1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a)
> portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications
> Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of a
> particular installation or group of installations of anti-piracy,
> anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or
> authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization
> tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or other
> information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
> so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> Does this mean that section (b) hints that USG has a vested interest in some
> parts of Windows being kept secret???  Conspiracy theories abound, and
> inquiring minds want to know....
> 
> Rick
> Infowarrior.org
> 
> 
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
> 
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as dgillmor@sjmercury.com
> To unsubscribe or update your address, click
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=124862&user_secret=bbddfcfb
> 
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
> 


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=125275&user_secret=1aa8f2d6

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/