Criminalizing crypto criticism

[mmotyka at lsil.com]

George wrote :
>> `(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person
>> qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be
>> considered shall include--
>> `(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was
>> disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated in a manner
>> reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development
>> of encryption technology, versus whether it was whether it was
>> disseminated in a manner that facilitates infringement under this
>> title or a violation of applicable law other than this section,
>> including a violation of privacy or breach of security;
>> 
>> -Declan
>> 
>> 
>I've been rereading this a bunch of times trying to figure out
>what,  if anything,  it's supposed to mean.  I've come up with two
>slightly different interpretations:
>
>1) If you release your results at a university-sponsored conference
>you're an exempt researcher,  but if you release identical results at
>Defcon you're a criminal.
>
>2) Anyone with the financial resources or legal background to get 
>this law overturned on Constitutional grounds is not to be
>prosecuted in the first place.
>
>I think 2 is actually the more accurate reading.
>
>George
>
It's pretty odd. That is to say, aren't most academic results eventually
available to the world at large? The more interesting or applicable they
are the faster they spread. So what's the difference where and how the
information is released? It is either part of the public forum or it is
not. Are we going to split academic publications into two classes now?
Will you need a license to hear certain lectures and be prohibited from
passing on what you've learned? (3)(A) is an unfairly arbitrary
criterion for assigning criminal culpability. 

Also, what is the relevance of the "or a violation of applicable law
other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of
security" bit? Are they trying to apply the DMCA to anyone who publishes
information that makes it easier to develop exploits against OS bugs?
That piece seems out of place. There must be a reason it was included.

As for George's #2, DMCA does have that flavor. I suppose that it will
retain its value as a means for intimidation, Constitutional or
otherwise, as long as it is not tested. Then there's the nightmare
scenario in which it is upheld. Let's not go there.

DMCA is ***not that bad***, at least there is a research exemption but
if you want to be a pessimist it looks as though you could be screwed
for communicating your knowledge to anyone but a partner or the owner of
the copyright protection system. Free labor for the copyright holder.
The satisfaction of a job well done for the laboror. Somehow the
information derived from study belongs to the owner of the thing
studied. Why not apply the same principal to the studies of the human
genome?

As for Mr. Felton's run-in with this abomination, did he sign any sort
of contract with the music guys to get the materials he needed to do his
work? That might change how we view his situation relative to DMCA.

Mike