Criminalizing crypto criticism + 802.11b access

[David Honig]

At 07:08 AM 7/28/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote:
>
>>>You can create an executable, with source code, package it up and 
>>>send it to the copyright owner with a note that says "your protection 
>>>is broken: here's the proof."
>>
>>How about dropping them a note to send an engineer to DefCon? 
>
>Not a problem -- as long as what you're making available to the 
>public at DefCon is not a program that script kiddies can download 
>and use to break stuff.

What's a 'program' in the above sentence?   Is source a program?  Source
without the main() and #includes?  Source with an intentionally missing ';'?
Precise english description of an algorithm?  Math?  What exactly 
are the limits of a 'script kiddie'?

>
>>>You can shout at the top of your lungs that their crypto is broken, 
>>>on all kinds of forums. 
>>
>>Might be libel if not true.
>
>Oh, yeah, feature them suing you for libel, and then watching aghast 
>as you enter "exhibit A" -- the source code -- into the trial and the 
>public record.  If it successfully decrypts their stuff, it proves that 
>what you said is true.  It also goes all over the internet within 
>about twenty minutes.  

So they get Mr. Judge to seal the docs.

>Bear in mind that these people are not dealing from a position of 
>strength, as long as their crypto is actually broken.  

Tell that to Dmitri. :-<