Tom Bell writes:

[S. 1284 would]: 1) make[] transmission of copies a type of publication (and thus potentially a means of infringing a copyright); and 2) prohibit[] the importation, manufacture, or distribution of any device the primary purpose of which is to deactivate any technological protections that prevent or inhibit the violation of copyrights.

M. F. (Pat) Sprague writes: # What occurs to me is that PGP could be considered a "device" to obscure # contents of data therby preventing the determination of a copyright # violation. Encryption (as opposed to decryption) doesn't defeat any mechanisms that stop someone from violating a copyright. It can make the _detection_ harder, but not the _commission_. So I don't think that should be a concern. (As usual, IANAL.) Building upon Tom Bell's and cjs' observations, I suppose it could be argued that encryption can be employed as a means of copyright protection. Hence some decryption programs might be outlawed as devices intended to "deactivate" copyright-protecting technology. I can't think of any c'punks projects so far that try to pierce security schemes meant to shield materials from copyright violations. Since many cypherpunks aren't inclined to preserve copyrights, they lack a motive for ensuring the integrity of copyright protection methods. Cypherpunks launch attempts to crack security systems in order ultimately to improve them, not for the sake of breaking them. I expect the alt.2600 crowd would be more directly affected by S. 1284. As a matter of principle, though, I don't think we should be amicable to a bill like S. 1284. It's a bit disturbing to see that it's cosponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy & Russ Feingold, who led the Senate opposition to the Indecent Act. I find it hard to imagine that the bill will encounter any significant legislative obstacles. -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>