CDR: Re: RC4 source as a literate program

[dmolnar]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Gary Jeffers wrote:

> then give his opinion as to wheather it was legal or not. If the lawyer
> said that it was legal and gave his opinion in writing, then the
> client could proceed without out worry. The lawyer's opinion would stop
> any criminal prosecution.

Does this really work? I can't imagine this working for murder (but on the
other hand, that's  a bad example since it's unreasonable to imagine
murder legal in the USA). Even for something like tax laws or other
complicated regulations this sounds dubious. 

 
>    I wonder if this would work with publishing crypt code. I think it
> might put the lawyer at risk. If we had a lawyer who really thought

Well, a lawyer who advised a client that something was legal when in fact
it wasn't might have a problem. 

> that publishing crypt code on the Internet was legal and wasn't afraid
> of sticking his neck out then his published statement on the Internet
> to this might open the floodgates of crypt code Internet posting for
> Americans.

Such a statement would help, but more because it would be from an expert
on the law than because of any legal shield. I am not a lawyer, and so I'd
like to have one's opinion before doing anything that could land me in
jail. That kind of thing.

> 
>    Donald has stated that the law in this area is quite vague. I would
> think even if the law prohibited it, then the law would be unconstitu-
> tional and therefore null and void.
> 

Prohibiting what - publishing cryptography code?
In any case, even if the law is unconstitutional, you may have to go
through several layers of court cases to prove it. c.f. Bernstein. :(

-David