At 12:14 PM -0700 8/1/01, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:

I keep seeing words like "bona fide" and "legitimate" used as modifiers for "cryptographic researcher." The DMCA states :

(3)(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and

Isn't self-taught a legitimate course of study? Abraham Lincoln was largely self-taught. If a teenager, who has clearly not had the opportunity to amass much in the way of official credentials, can break CSS hasn't he "engaged in a legitimate course of study" and isn't he "appropriately experienced in the field of encryption technology?"

It's part of the credentialling of rights. See my earlier post on Official Reporters, Official Thisandthat. It gives one more piece of ammo for someone going after J. Random Cryptographer. Shifts the burden a bit more to J. Random to "prove" that he should be due the rights given to Approved Cryptographers. (Like many rent-seekers, expect professional organizations to use membership in their organization as one of the litmus tests. IACR may see a surge in membership.)

The modifiers are meaningless as is 3B.

Why do we even discuss the damn thing. It's just another rathole to dive into. It's wrong. We know it's wrong. Short of nuclear blackmail Congress will not change it and the courts will not overturn it. I'll let the lawyers and those with deep pockets fight that battle. About the only good I might be able to do is to contribute to enhancing the means for people to exchange and distribute proscribed information with impunity.

As we've known for many years, the gubment can throw more legal cases out there than "the community" can raise money for. Several years ago it was the crypto export brouhaha (which still hasn't gotten noticeably easier, say my corporate contacts). And the Online Decency nonsense. The government pays their people to put cases out there, causing the lobbying orgs to beg for donations. The latest is the DMCA. I was talking to an online advocacy guy recently and he was telling me they figure they need $2 million to defend/handle the Dimitry case. This even with Adobe dropping out out of cowardice at what they've wrought. I shrugged and said "Good luck." Maybe he thought I'd contribute.... All I can think of when I hear about these cases is how _far_ $2 million would go toward making available a lot of robust Mixmaster (hopefully beyond Type II) remailers, the deployment of SWAN and other "crypto by default" pipes, and similar "trust in the laws of mathematics and not the laws of men" approaches. A $2 million project to deploy a system of digital cash-paid remailers would be exciting. $2 million to defend a Russian is not. Even if Dimitry is released, the Copyright Establishment is _not_ going to back off. (Besides Adobe, there are even more draconian moves from the satellite t.v. people. Will online advocacy groups spend even more millions defending the dish hackers? And so on, in a neverending cascade of major pitched battles.) (And, yes, I invest my money in some of these technological approaches. I guess I'd better stop hinting at what these investments are, lest BU be correct that merely building in ways to bypass Big Brother is "spoliation.") --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns