-Original Message-
From: Scott A Crosby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
Worse.. Think of it:
This even applies to answering machines that store the message on a
digital chip. (Like the one my mother uses).
So, this like the DMCA, will be a law that will be very selectively
I believe that only the DA (government) can initiate criminal
proceedings. Unlike in civil proceedings the copyright holders don't
have to spend a dime defending their DMCA or (proposed) SSSCA rights,
the taxpayer foots the bill.
--
Viktor.
Richard Hartman
If this
Rick is absolutely right, but could I give the lobbyist reply?
1) This Act actually creates two types of computers: those that comply with
the Act and those that don't comply.
Wrong; it eradicates the second type. Our innovative US hardware sector will be
ready with compliant machines the day
Ian Brown writes:
It won't take long to use the WIPO, WTO, and good 'ole US strongarm
tactics to
impose this legislation on the rest of the world. Meanwhile, we impose
crippling sanctions on any company with any US exposure that produces such
devices. cf Cuba, war on drugs, etc. etc.
Before we
I see little reason to believe we won't see a similar result this time,
especially given the huge issue (finally!) digital copyright has become.
After all, what hardware company wants to sell a hobbled computer whose
main purpose is to protect someone else's line of business?
The
I've been noticing a lot of ways you can mess up a cryptographic
protocol due to the sliding around of fields within a signed or MACed
message. The classic example of this is the old attack on PGP
fingerprints, which let you use some odd keysize, and thus get two
different keys (with different
Greg Rose wrote:
At 12:44 AM 9/9/2001 -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
Does using non-adaptive compression save the day?
Huffman coding using a fixed code table is not a bad way to go. You can
even peek at the characteristics of the input and choose a table based on
that... having standardised
