Re: Short story?
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 03:03:29PM -0800, Petro wrote: | Permanently behind on my email: | | On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:22:41PM -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: | I'm trying to remember details (author, title) of a short story that I | read once. Its main feature, or the one that's standing out in my | mind, is the obsessive hacker who studies a target to figure out his | password, at which he only has one guess. The zinger is that the very | security concious target has selected that password as a booby trap, | and there's a second password which our hacker doesn't have. | Does this ring a bell for anyone? | | Yes--except that the password wasn't a booby trap, what the user did | was to aways enter a wrong password first, then the right password. | | In the story the password guesser was an adult in (IIRC) a 5 year | olds body, and his partner in this crime had his brain burned out by | certain Organized Crime individuals who were not happy with the | passports the password theft made possible. | | It was either in an anthology of William Gibsons work, or in an | anthology of cyberpunk stuff from the 80s or early 90s. | | Sorry I can't remember any more. Dogwalker, Orson Scott Card. But thanks! Adam -- It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume
Re: [IP] more on keep them ignorant -- ElcomSoft Jury Asks for Law Text - judge refuses
In cases where the statues might appear to reasonable people, otherwise ignorant of the judicial process, to be made from whole cloth or contrary to fairness or a plain reading of the constitution, denying juries access can help thwart nullification. Its un-American and downright anarchistic ;-) At 09:05 PM 12/14/2002 -0500, Steve Barber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In jury trials in the US legal system, the jury's job is to find facts and the judge's is to interpret the law. The judge interprets the law relevant to the case, and transmits that interpretation to the jury in the form of the judge's charge. The jury then takes the charge and finds facts (by weighing the credibility of the evidence presented at trial) according to the legal framework the charge provides. For the jury to have access to the text of the statute is effectively to bypass the judge's charge. The charge not only focuses the jury on the parts of the statute relevant to the issues actually presented in the case, but also often contains wording somewhat different from the statute that incorporates controlling judicial precedent relevant to and not present in the actual language of the statute. steve
Re: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
At 02:29 PM 12/15/02 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Steve Schear wrote: From the article: The court dismissed suggestions the Internet was different from other broadcasters, who could decide how far their signal was to be transmitted. This is totally bogus thinking. The Internet is not broadcast medium. Yes, it is. Every site that emits a packet broadcasts it onto the network. The network? Sorry, its one wire from here to there. Even a router with multiple NICs only copies a given packet to a single interface. One can even make a comparison between 'frequency modulation' with 'IP service'. Information from Web sites must be requested, the equivalent of ordering a book or newspaper, Or tuning your browser to the 'frequecy' of the web server. For purposes of thinking about *channels* you can use the old Marconi way of thinking of frequency as channel-selector. The net has under 2^32 x 2^16 (IP x port) endpoints or 'channels'. However in detail this mildly useful metaphor breaks down. In particular, most protocols (e.g., TCP) set up a virtual, temporary circuits. Clients have to request such circuits. Servers have to grant them. Not the case for a true broadcast net, eg radio. More like making a phone call. Do you think when you speak on the phone that you are broadcasting into the Network? You are not. --- Of course, words mean different things in Choate-prime. Apologies to the C-prime filterers.
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, John Kelsey wrote: The thing that's being missed here is that, if elections can be won by running on a pro-freedom slate, politicians will be found to do that. Note Running and winning are 2 different things. So far most libertarians don't win, but it's slowly changing. that guns are still legal in the US, despite the fact that armed private citizens are apparently *very* unpopular with the decisionmaking elite in I don't know, Ashcroft is adament about the 2nd amendment. It's about the only good thing I can think of otherwise. IMO, the Republicans won the midterm elections because most Americans are more scared of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden than of George Bush and John Ashcroft. As long as that continues, being seen to take bold and far-reaching steps to fight the war on terrorism is going to be necessary for anyone who wants to win an election. So we're going to continue to see cosmetic security measures (like confiscating nail clippers at airport gates), and security measures that have horrible potential for abuse (like letting the president disappear anyone he claims is an unlawful combattant), and even security measures that are likely to make citizens less safe from terrorist violence (like invading Iraq). Partly I agree, but the whole Iraq thing is smoke pulled out of thing air. It's so blatently obvious the kid is doing the dad's dirty work for either the oil or revenge (or both!) that most people can see it. They just don't care. OBL is something they really worry about. The twin towers really are gone. That the US government can't put together a commission to burry the facts is pretty amazing though. Everybody must realize there's too much to burry. The US has the dumbest government on the planet, and probably the documentation to prove it. What scares me the most is that the majority doesn't really care that the government is stupid. Sooner or later that's gonna bite them in the butt when the swat teams kick in their doors and blow their heads off. The ones who escape death will just be non-combatents and never see the light of day. When just one guy gets that treatment, it's an interesting excercise for lawyers. When 100 people get it, we will have a far more serious problem. But until 100,000 people get turned into non-combatents with no rights, the majority just isn't going to care. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
West Coast Offense
On Sunday, December 15, 2002, at 09:22 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 12:18:52AM +, David Wagner wrote: Declan McCullagh wrote: Also epic.org (not a cypherpunk-friendly organization, but it does try to limit law enforcement surveillance) [...] Is the cypherpunks movement truly so radicalized that it is not willing to count even EPIC among its friends? Perhaps I was being unfair to EPIC and typing too quickly. I count EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg as a friend, a principled person, and someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. Some folks may remember that Marc and I drove to a cypherpunks meeting south of Palo Alto last year. I met Marc for the first time at that CP meeting, held at the Alpine Inn (aka Rosotti's, from decades past) up in the foothills above Stanford. A great meeting. David Friedman showed up late in the day. I chatted with Marc for a while--the usual gossip and pleasantries. He made a remark along the lines of You're not as bad as I expected or You don't sound as crazy in person as you do online. (I really don't remember what he said, but it was something along these lines.) That I am different in person, exchanging low-bandwidth conversation, should not be surprising to anyone. I mention his comments because he clearly shows that _his_ sort of people view _our_ sort of people, from our writings (or, pedantically, from _my_ writings) as being radical, weird, irrational, whatever. To mirror Declan's phrasing, I expect Marc R. would say Cypherpunks is not an EPIC-friendly bunch. Which is fair, as neither EPIC nor similar Beltway lobbying groups should be interesting or useful for us. At best, they are not causing damage. At worst, they cut deals to steal our freedoms. More on this below. But EPIC sharply diverges with some cypherpunks over the question of what regulations should be imposed on private entities. It supports -- may even be the most vocal supporter -- of laws telling you, in Tim's words, you must forget someone's previous commercial interactions with you past a certain date. It supports broad and intrusive regulations aimed at companies' data collection and use practices. It would like to establish a European-style (not exactly the same, perhaps, but close) data protection regime in the U.S., despite all the free speech problems we've seen with it in Europe: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=palme To the extent cypherpunks care about those values and cherish limited government involvement in those areas, EPIC is not, as I wrote, a cypherpunk-friendly organization. EPIC and those other organizations (I don't even recall the name of that other one, not EFF, but the one roughly parallel with EPIC) represent the East Coast Defense. Cypherpunks is the West Coast Offense. (NFL parallels intentional.) (Note added: I'm not the first to point to the difference in culture between East and West. A long tradition of this, and The Cowboy and Yankee War by Carroll Quigley, fleshed out the differences in terms of the national security state. Both Kevin Kelly and Steven Levy noted it. One of them wrote descriptively of the West Coast way of doing things... Parallels with the development of high tech, Silicon Valley, and the economy in general are obvious. The California approach is clearly not the East Coast approach.) The origin of the CP meetings, and always with the largest (by far) physical meetings, is the San Francisco Bay Area. I trust I don't have to elaborate on this point, even for the apparent newcomers. The West Coast Offense is a passing game. It's a rejectionist stance. Having Sobel and Rotenberg and their sort lobbying Congress for laws to force disclosure of various kinds of private information held by non-government actors is statist. Declan cites one of my favorite examples: the Fair Lending Act or Truth in Lending Act (or whatever the precise name--something nice-sounding about Fair Disclosure, natch). At first blush, it looks reasonable, as it says that bad credit may be replaced by good credit after some number of years have passed. Blah blah. Most of the sheeple think it's part of the nature of the universe: But, but they can't turn you down for a loan after seven years!! Consider what this really means. Alice lent money to Bob. Bob skipped out on his debt. Alice remembers this. Alice tells her associates about this. (This is all that a credit rating is.) Big Brother comes along and says We have passed a law. After 7 years, and with other restrictions of various sorts, you, Alice, may not remember that Bob once screwed you. And you must not tell other people. This is no different, really, from the government saying that a restaurant reviewer must disclose all records to restaurants being reviewed, must not share reviews except in manners prescribed by the Fair Restaurant Review Act of 1998, must give restaurants the opportunity to dispute the
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 08:56:04PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: I don't know, Ashcroft is adament about the 2nd amendment. It's about the only good thing I can think of otherwise. He's not as regulatory as his predecessor, but I find it hard to reconcile that statement with the DOJ's actions in court. -Declan
Re: [s-t] olfactory profiling (fwd)
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Eugen Leitl wrote: Realtime, cheap, reliable, invisible. Hard to fake, especially if combined with other biometrics. Can be as sensitive as a canine, in principle. [...] http://www.eps.gov/spg/USA/USAMC/DAAD19/DAAD19-03-R-0004/SynopsisP.html I would think anyone doing brain research on dogs should be advised of this. The overall processing in a dogs brain would be the first thing you want to study. Building devices to mimic what a dog does is the second step. I'm not into dogs myself, but they do have some amazing abilities. Something like 70% of the dog's brain is devoted to it's nose. That should tell them something about the difficulty of the task :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: CDR: Re: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Miles Fidelman wrote: On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Jim Choate wrote: On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Steve Schear wrote: From the article: The court dismissed suggestions the Internet was different from other broadcasters, who could decide how far their signal was to be transmitted. This is totally bogus thinking. The Internet is not broadcast medium. Yes, it is. Every site that emits a packet broadcasts it onto the network. One can even make a comparison between 'frequency modulation' with 'IP service'. Information from Web sites must be requested, the equivalent of ordering a book or newspaper, At the IP level, sending an IP packet to a specific address is no more a broadcast than sending a piece of mail through the postal service. Nobody (but perhaps you by inference) is claiming it is identical, however, it -is- a broadcast (just consider how a packet gets routed, consider the TTL for example or how a ping works). Each packet you send out goes to many places -besides- the shortest route to the target host (which is how the shortest route is found). The comparison is close enough to have validity. -- We don't see things as they are, [EMAIL PROTECTED] we see them as we are. www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anais Nin www.open-forge.org
Re: Suspending the Constitution
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 03:49 PM 12/14/02 -0800, Tim May wrote: PLONK. Hey, maybe Mike was talking about Mr. Booth, not Mr. Lincoln. :-) Tim has given me some motivation to work on an old idea. We'll see if I get any time in the next year to make it happen. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Privacy qua privacy (Was: Photographer Arrested For Taking Pictures...)
At 12:53 PM 12/15/02 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: ... I think that a law which re-affirmed the rights to be anonymous, to call yourself what you will, to be left alone, to not carry or show ID would transform the debate about privacy into terms in which the issue could be solved. (At least as it affects private companies.) Companies would be able to do what they want with your data as long as you had a meaningful and non-coercive choice about handing it over. I think this would help, but I also think technology is driving a lot of this. You don't have to give a lot more information to stores today than you did twenty years ago for them to be much more able to track what you buy and when you buy it and how you pay, just because the available information technology is so much better. Surveilance cameras, DNA testing, identification by iris codes, electronic payment mechanisms that are much more convenient than cash most of the time, all these contribute to the loss of privacy in ways that are only partly subject to any kind of government action (or inaction) or law. The records are being created and kept by both government and private entities. The question is whether to try to regulate their use (with huge potential free-speech issues, and the possibility of companies being able to, say, silence criticism of their products or services) or leave them alone (with the certainty that databases will grow and continue to be linked, creating pretty comprehensive profiles of almost everyone's reading, musical, spending, and travel patterns, and with anyone who takes serious measures to avoid being profiled having obvious gaps in their profiles to indicate their wish for privacy in some area). Some kinds of privacy are, IMO, in the process of all but disappearing. Other kinds are being made possible by technology, which would never have even been possible before, but it's not at all clear they'll really come into being for many people. (How many people are sure their machines are secure against the best spyware the feds can come up with?) ... Adam --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDR: Re: [IP] Dan Gillmor: Accessing a whole new world viamultimedia phones (fwd)
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Jim Choate wrote: On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Steve Furlong wrote: Jim Choate, in a display of bad judgement and ill temper never before seen on the internet, spewed forth the following blood-libel: I have fulfilled a lifelong goal, I have walked where no man has ever walked before. I can now die happy ;) Oh yeah, I forgot to ask... Can I put this on my resume? -- We don't see things as they are, [EMAIL PROTECTED] we see them as we are. www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anais Nin www.open-forge.org
Re: [IP] Dan Gillmor: Accessing a whole new world via multimedia phones (fwd)
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Steve Furlong wrote: Jim Choate, in a display of bad judgement and ill temper never before seen on the internet, spewed forth the following blood-libel: I have fulfilled a lifelong goal, I have walked where no man has ever walked before. I can now die happy ;) I'm not sure I agree with Odlyzko's point about connectivity vs content. But your prior statement, Bullshit, if there isn't content why do they want connectivity? What is it they are connecting to?, misses the distinction between the two. There is -no- distinction between the two, they are opposite sides of the -same- coin. To talk of one without the other is simply asinine and ignorant. Typical western deconstructionist thinking, muddled. -- We don't see things as they are, [EMAIL PROTECTED] we see them as we are. www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anais Nin www.open-forge.org
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
hi, --- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: US policy was to restore the status quo ante in Afghanistan, put things back the way they were before the Soviet invasion. How does that make things better for 'afghan' people,after all the bombing done on their home land? The future of Afghanistan will probably be no less violent than it was before the Soviet invasion, but no more violent that it was before the Soviet invasion. Thats the only thing US seems to be doing for afghani people after all their promises.The US foreign policy is disliked world wide. Regards Sarath. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
at Tuesday, December 17, 2002 5:33 AM, the following Choatisms were heard: Nobody (but perhaps you by inference) is claiming it is identical, however, it -is- a broadcast (just consider how a packet gets routed, consider the TTL for example or how a ping works). ping packets aren't routed any differently from non-ping packets - they bounce up though your ISPs idea of best route to the recipient's ISP, who then use their idea of best route to the target (leaving aside the via IP flag). The reply bounces up their ISP's idea of best route to your ISP, and down though your ISP's best route to you. There isn't a sudden wave of ping packet travelling out across the internet like a radar pulse, and reflecting back to you - it is a directed transfer of a single discrete packet. The best analogy (made by someone else here earlier) is a telephone call; each call follows a routing path defined by the phone company's best idea of pushing comms one step closer to the destination at that time; it may be that a longer route (bouncing via a third country to get to a second, rather than using the direct line) has a lower cost due to the usage at that time, so that route is used.
Woof (Re: [s-t] olfactory profiling (fwd))
At 11:00 AM 12/17/02 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote: RAH Seriously. cf recent neuroscience/paleoanthropology research about the man-dog interface... He's talking about a recent study (in _Science_) comparing the ability of domestic dogs, wolves, and chimps to interpret a human's signals -pointing, gaze, etc.-- about the location of food. Dogs were better than wolves and chimps. Even dog puppies were better than chimps or wolves. Not bad for a dozen Kyears of selection.
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
While I disagree with the phrase revenge only becomes justice if carried out by the State and I certainly don't agree with everything ever written in a Crypto-Gram, I must disagree with your evaluation of Mr. Schneier's editorial. Specifically, the phrase why the state can NOT be just... Please tell me why... or better yet, how do you define just? perhaps, I am living in a dream world, but, if you live in the United States, then we DO still have control over what the State does... bring on the naysayers, and the people who cry about corruption and conspiracy... but the fact still remains, that what the people want, the people can have... if they want it bad enough... the problem is that the people don't want it bad enough anymore.. the apathy is sickening... who's fault is that? I am so tired of hearing people cry about government corruption and what is wrong with this country and society when only 50% or less of the people actually vote... People say that they don't vote because they don't like the options presented to them... well, then change them... as for the State having NO motivation to be fair... please support this... our system is, by no means, perfect... but, it is a system where if you want to make things different, then make them different... instead of getting on your soapbox to bitch and moan about how unfair things are, why not start makings things fair... shawn On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 04:12, Marcel Popescu wrote: Are you for real??? I'm reading with horror the editorial of your latest crypto-gram. Phrases like revenge only becomes justice if carried out by the State or the State has more motivation to be fair sound like right out of 1984. What happened to you? This is so utterly ridiculous that I'd laugh if you wouldn't have so much influence on so many people. I got over your idea that arming pilots and people on planes is bad, while armed marshals are good (because they get 3 balls while on duty, presumably), I got over your ignorance of the solution to the public good dilemma - which is NOT state control, but private property and enforcement of property rights - but this is nuts. Do I have to explain to you why the state can NOT be just? Why it has NO motivation to be fair, if it can get away with it? Why the incentives are all wrong - and why, even if we found saints and put them to govern, their *signals* would be all wrong, because they wouldn't put *their* lives and properties on the line? Do you even read the articles whose URLs you present to support your ideas - because the first one, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64688,00.html , is definitely not friendly to the state's justice? I would have thought that someone whose name is well known among cypherpunks has at least some familiarity with these ideas. At the very least, it would have required you to explain why you believe the state is good for justice - something which is definitely alien for most of us! Mark -- email: pakkit at codepiranha dot org cell: mobile-pakkit at codepiranha dot org web: http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit pgp key: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp: 8988 6FB6 3CFE FE6D 548E 98FB CCE9 6CA9 98FC 665A having problems reading email from me? http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit/pgp-trouble.html [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
hi, Mr. Scheiner was always a bozo, If he is such a bozo,why are n't many of those saying this not as sucessful as he is? Mr. Sheiner's book on applied cryptography is a beauty for a beginer. --- Sleeping Vayu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Scheiner was always a bozo, for those who actually know him firsthand. His main talent was creating an extremely successful crypto-celebrity image at the opportune moment, boosting the sales of his under-mediocre Applied Cryptography (not to be confused with the excellent Handbook of Applied Cryptography by Alfred Menezes) and consulting business for his company. In business dealings, when hired as consultant, he was extremely unreliable and unprofessional. In direct contact he failed to deliver expertize, rising possibility that he was simply a frontman for actual experts. His analysis was pompous and most of the time outright wrong. Of course no body remembers the A to Z of cryptography to give instant expertise all the time. Regards Sarath. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Big Brotherish Laws
If I recall some time ago (years ago) there was some discussion on list of using non-US drivers licenses or out-of-state drivers licenses I think to get around this problem. I thought it was Duncan Frissell or Black Unicorn who offered some opinions on this. (Actually I am interested in this topic also because I have a UK drivers license and recently moved to the US; taking a drivers test is hassle, and having fingerprints taken (if Washington state is one of the states doing this) feels intrusive to me. ) There are also things called International Drivers Permits, which may allow you to drive for longer on non-US drivers licenses and/or allow you to more easily get a US driving license given an existing non-US license. In the UK at least you can buy an International Drivers Permits for 4 pounds from AA or RAC (motoring associations) on presentation of a currently valid UK drivers license. However I'm having trouble figuring out what the rules are. Washington state licensing say that you must apply for a state license within 30 days if you relocate. And yet I'm pretty sure you can drive for longer than that on an International Driving Permit (the UK ones last for a year I think). But perhaps different rules apply if you are holidaying as opposed to moving. Adam On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:28:51PM -0800, Blanc wrote: About a week ago, someone mentioned that in order to get a Driver's Licence in CA, one has to provide a thumbprint (and Social Security number). I was surprised by this. So do long-term cpunks who own cars and drive in that State have their finger print in the public database? (I have already inquired of two in the Bay Area). Are there many other such laws/regulations in CA that you all know of with which 'residents' are expected comply? .. Blanc
Re: War on drugs...
On 13 Dec 2002, Sleeping Vayu wrote: Uh...I'd point out that this is no coincidence. The Conpiracy Theorist would say that the War on Drugs was precisely the CIA's way to keep its own drug prices high and continue funding their own little activites. Plausible. Oh, and aside from the fatass oil pipeline they've wanted to build in Afghanistan, guess another little resource that Afghanistan has produced in the past (and that the Taliban had cracked down on)? Yeah--you got it--Poppies...and now that the Warlords are back in charge the cash crop is back. Remember that it was the US which encouraged the Taliban to crack down on the cultivation of Afghanistan poppies. A gift of several million US dollars convinced the Taliban to ban the farming of poppies, depriving the Afghani farmers of their livlihood, while not impacting the world drug trade (the Taliban wisely retained stock-piles of processed crop, ready for price-fixing.) Oil might have something to do with the US's interest in being Afghanistan's puppeteer, but it is unlikely that opium does as well. -MW-
more about using non-US driving licenses (Re: Big Brotherish Laws)
And this I guess was the cypherpunks post I was thinking about from Duncan below. The only worries then would be if the insurance company would consider you insured in event of an accident with a non-US license. (Where that could a Canadian insurance company, or a US insurance company if you can persuade a US insurance company to issue you insurance with a non-US drivers license). Of course in my case I do not have a Canadian drivers license but I think those are simpler to get. Adam http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.1998.08.10-1998.08.16/msg00052.html Duncan Frissell wrote on Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:33:47 -0400: | [...] | Even if not, another thing they can't do is prevent you from driving | in California with an out-of-state or out-of-country license. Since | they are prohibiting the issuance of state licenses to non-residents, | short term business visitors, tourists, and part-year residents, | will have to use their own licenses from other jurisdictions. | | Note that the state of California does not control the national | borders or the definition of residence. A Canadian with a Lake | Tahoe house will be able to spend a great deal of time there and use | his BC license and BC-registered car. Residence (domicile) remains a | matter for common law court definition. There is no definitive test. | Ownership of a house in the jurisdiction is not determinative. | Additionally, the subject is *never* litigated save in cases involving | residency for political office and residency for taxation. Since a | driver's license is not worth any money to the State, they tend not to | litigate over such trivialities.
Verdict's in: Elcomsoft NOT GUILTY of criminal DMCA violations
[I'm more convinced than ever that nullification figured into the verdict. If so, bravo for the jury. steve] http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978176.html SAN JOSE, Calif.--A jury on Tuesday found a Russian software company not guilty of criminal copyright charges for producing a program that can crack antipiracy protections on electronic books.
