Cryptography-Digest Digest #702, Volume #13 Sat, 17 Feb 01 19:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: National Security Nightmare? (Jim)
Re: Big Numbers in C/C++ (Paul Rubin)
Re: Big Numbers in C/C++ (JCA)
Re: á÷ôïûéîù îå äïòïçï éú ñðïîéé ("Ryan M. McConahy")
Any unbroken knapsack cryptosystem? ("mklai")
Re:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E1=F7=F4=EF=FB=E9=EE=F9=20=EE=E5=20=E4=EF=F2=EF=E7=EF=20=E9=FA=20=F1=F0=EF=EE=E9=E9?=
("John A. Malley")
Re: Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large (Anthony Stephen Szopa)
Re: Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large (Anthony Stephen Szopa)
Re: National Security Nightmare? ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Digital signature w/o original document (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
Re: CipherText patent still pending ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Super strong crypto ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large ("Michael Brown")
Re: Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large ("Michael Brown")
Re: National Security Nightmare? (Sundial Services)
Re: Most secure code for US Citizen. (Sundial Services)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dynastic @cwcom.net (Jim)
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Reply-To: Jim
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 19:23:34 GMT
On 17 Feb 2001 11:00:32 +0300, Eugene Morozov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
>> >
>> > Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>
>> > > The problem is that, if one doesn't have any information
>> > > to start, then it is really like finding needles in
>> > > haystack.
>> >
>> > At least for domestic communication within the US, without
>> > probable cause, governmental agencies aren't supposed to be
>> > examining the information at all.
>>
>> There are rumours (no proof, understandably) that in
>> a few democratic countries (not US) there are misuses of
>> wiretaping, possibly by corrupted personals. That's
>> I believe the main cause of people's negative opinions
>> towards that. It's clearly a difficult issue like hundreds
>> of others in society, e.g. whether a country should have
>> nuclear power plants.
>
>If Russia is a democratic country (if you don't live here you might think it
>is), then these rumours are correct. All russian providers should send copies
>of all email messages going through their mail servers to organization that was
>called "KGB" in soviet era. So, KGB employees may read almost any email
>without permission of the court and I'm sure they're already doing that.
>Combined with russian law forbidding any use and/or development of encryption
>for any purposes this creates a great possibility for misusing wiretaping in
>Russia.
Exactly the same thing happens here. Where's here? The so-called United
Kingdom.
Crypto isn't banned, but they can demand your keys, and if you fail to
provide them they lock you up.
Russia isn't unique in being an undemocratic country!
--
___________________________________________
Posted by Jim Dunnett
We've spent three matches chasing
a football. -- Kevin Keegan.
dynastic at cwcom.net
nordland at lineone.net
'We have to control the number of people
travelling' -- GNER spokesman.
__________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Paul Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Big Numbers in C/C++
Date: 17 Feb 2001 11:28:14 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
> Dann Corbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How does GMP compare to Freelip? Has anyone actually done benchmarks?
>
> http://cr.yp.to/speed/mult.html
These benchmarks precede the most recent gmp version, which has
significant speedups.
------------------------------
From: JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Big Numbers in C/C++
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:50:17 -0800
Dann Corbit wrote:
> "JCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Paul Schlyter wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > David Sowinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I prefer GMP and believe that it is faster than MIRACL.
> > >
> > > Did you use just the C low-level routines in MIRACL when evaulating
> > > the speed? MIRACL also has assembly language replacements for these
> > > for the most popular processors,
> >
> > So does GMP.
>
> MIRACL is a lot easier to use.
GMP is quite easy to use. At least, I have never had any problem with it.
> The speed might be a push, but you also have a
> ton of algorithms already implemented.
Fair enough. I was just interested in the big integer stuff. anyway.
> Besides which, C++ classes are so much
> easier to understand.
Whoa, I dispute that! I have no love for C++, I am sorry to say.
> MIRACL is a lot better (for me -- YMMV).
>
Good for you!
------------------------------
From: "Ryan M. McConahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: á÷ôïûéîù îå äïòïçï éú ñðïîéé
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:01:38 -0500
What the heck is this???
------------------------------
From: "mklai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Any unbroken knapsack cryptosystem?
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:20:06 -0800
I am a novice.
Are there any unbroken knapsack cryptosystems?
Serge Vaudenay claimed to break the Chor-Rivest system (see his article in
Lectures Notes in Computer Science - Crypto '98, the same article also
appears in Journal of Cryptology 2000). Is now the consenus that Chor-Rivest
is considered broken?
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: "John A. Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E1=F7=F4=EF=FB=E9=EE=F9=20=EE=E5=20=E4=EF=F2=EF=E7=EF=20=E9=FA=20=F1=F0=EF=EE=E9=E9?=
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:50:53 -0800
"Ryan M. McConahy" wrote:
>
> What the heck is this???
The email address is in Russia, so I set my web browser to view Cyrillic
characters. The original post looks like "reasonable" russian text when
that's done.
I can't read russian, though, so I have no idea what the OP asked or
said. Can anyone else read it?
John A. Malley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:10:38 -0800
Michael Brown wrote:
>
> First, sorry about the initial flame. I've seen this point made so many
> times by people who have never heard of packages that unfortunately you did
> the wrong thing at the wrong time (unbeknown to you though).
>
> Now onto your points:
>
> > Compare the documentation of the three products, why don't you?
>
> I think they are about all equal, personally. All of them are quite good.
>
> > And compare the number of books available for each product, why don't
> > you?
>
> On a quick search on Amazon, there are more for VB/VC (roughly 2-3 times. A
> lot are non-specific, such as a Win32 reference).
>
> > And give us some titles of some excellent Borland Builder books for the
> > novice to learn the details of programming C++ with Borland Builder, why
> > don't you?
>
> Quick search on Amazon
> CPP Builder : 11
> VB : ~100, though most of these are specific to one small area, such as XML,
> Win32 API etc. About the same as CPP Builder as far as tutorial books.
> VC : About the same as VB
>
> Also, C++ is (roughly) a standard, so any C++ book should help. The hard bit
> about C++ is the structure of th language rather than the compiler-specific
> objects. It's just a matter of getting used to the objects.
>
> > I say it is quite clear and undeniable that MS has better documentation,
> > more book support and much much much better quality of books on their
> > two products: VB and VC++.
>
> Agreed on the book support, but the helpfiles for all are about equal (all
> quite good). Also, the CPP Builder book that I used at one point (couple of
> years ago, can't remember its name) was very good for what I needed it for:
> explaining how to do stuff in CPP Builder. However, it assumed you already
> knew the basics of C++.
>
> > I have bought at least 5 expensive books on Borland Builder and they
> > were worth at most only one tenth of their cost.
>
> What were they (or have you dumped them :)? I hardly ever buy books for two
> reasons:
> 1) Unless it is for low level (read PMode assembler) I find the online (as
> in helpfiles etc) to be easier to use.
> 2) They are too narrow in their focus, so don't help much, or are too broad
> in their focus so don't give you the detail you want.
>
> > I have a book on visual basic that is like shining light from above.
>
> Wow. Did you use it as a candle? (joke :)
>
> Anyhow, I thought this was about executable size, not documentation. Anyhow,
> I agree with you here: MS has the goods as far as documentation, but I find
> its software is't as easy to use (or in the case of VB, fast). CPP Builder,
> I find, fills this gap well providing compilation as well as a proper visual
> interface (I don't count the VC interface as "visual"). However, I'm getting
> off the topic again, which was executable sizes.
>
> VB = small and slow (unless you include the required DLLs, in which case
> it's big and slow).
> VC = small but horrible, though it's well documented horribleness. Mainly
> small because all the stuff is in the MFC dlls (~1MB, although it's now
> preinstalled on most systems). Oh, and fast.
> CPPBuilder/Delphi = medium sized and fast and easy to use, but not so well
> supported in the book department.
>
> > I hope you feel better in your self aggrandizement.
>
> I'm not saying I'm the king, I'm just saying that if you've got CPP Builder,
> why the heck don't you use it? Also, I'm saying that comparing executable
> size to VB is pointless unless you use packages and/or compare the whole
> size, including all the DLLs/packages, and also the sacrifices you make by
> using something like VB.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
You know, I asked Borland why they don't take the bull by the horns
and put out their own books that teach C++ from the ground up using
their Builder RAD compiler. I asked them if they were stupid, also.
I told them that it must be a combination of stupidity and no guts.
I guess they are scared of MS. They are in some sort of
relationship with MS since they have a license(?) I guess to use
their MFC library.
I mean, Borland touts their Builder compiler so righteously that I
would think they would like to strike down the MS Beast and take
the RAD compiler market for themselves.
And the only way to do this is to put out their own books that teach
C++ programming from the ground up using their Builder compiler as
the programming IDE environment. DUH!
Bunch of IDIOTS they are.
I am upset because I like Builder too but can't see upgrading to Version
5.0 or 6 when it comes out because I don't feel their documentation lays
it all out.
The good VB book I have is Visual Basic 6: Environment, Programming,
and Applications by the two authors Eliason & Malarkey.
------------------------------
From: Anthony Stephen Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto,alt.hacker
Subject: Re: Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:15:32 -0800
CMan wrote:
>
> Bloatware from Microsoft. We are so brain dead from using their crapware we
> fail to see how easily it can be done.
>
> If you write code that restricts itself to using the built in C Runtime
> library, you can distribute software with tiny exe's. If you take the time
> to bend the Borland and Microsoft compiler IDE's to fit the problem, you can
> do the same thing with these. This is not a severe restriction as all the
> rich and powerful OLE and COM stuff is easily used while the exe remains
> tiny because all the required dlls are available to anyone who makes even a
> tiny effort to occasionally update his software.
>
> My personal choice is the free open source LCC-Win32 compiler and IDE by
> Jacob Navia. Once you take off the training wheels Microsoft has built into
> its Windows programming tools, you can write powerful but tiny exe's quite
> easily.
>
> Take a look at our Q99crak, AXcrak software ( http://www.crak.com ). These
> are a few tens of KB in size. Yet both of these programs grab the PC by the
> short hairs and yank out functions that leave many professional software
> engineers amazed.
>
> Check it out and stop using all those expensive IDE's. Learn to write code
> using the raw Windows API. Use LCC-Win32
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/9069/index.html ...Thank you
> Jacob!!
>
> JK
>
> --
> CRAK Software
> http://www.crak.com
> Password Recovery Software
> QuickBooks, Quicken, Access...More
> Spam bait (credit E. Needham):
> root@localhost
> postmaster@localhost
> admin@localhost
> abuse@localhost
> webmaster@localhost
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Anthony Stephen Szopa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large
> >
> > Until now all programs at Ciphile Software have been written and
> > compiled using Borland C++ Builder.
> >
> > When the program is compiled, all necessary files required to run
> > the program in Windows are built into the .exe
> >
> > Ciphile Software is now developing software using MS Visual Basic
> > 6.0
> >
> > Soon we will begin developing software using MS Visual C++ as well.
> >
> > We have developed two simple test programs using Visual Basic 6.0.
> > The .exe files themselves are only 24KB.
> >
> > One is compiled and deployed using the Package and Deploy Wizard
> > that also includes all necessary system files required to run the
> > .exe file in MS Windows such as several .DLLs.
> >
> > Here they are:
> >
> > VB6STKIT.DLL
> > COMCAT.DLL
> > STDOLE2.TLB
> > ASYCFILT.DLL
> > OLEPRO32.DLL
> > OLEAUT32.DLL
> > MSVBVM60.DLL
> >
> > So the setup program for this full compressed install program is
> > about 1.46MB. The result of this installation is that all required
> > system files are included and the user's computer system files are
> > updated if necessary and the program is listed in the Start/Program
> > files menu and registry entries are made, etc. and the full
> > uninstall procedure is included. Just use the MS OS Add/Remove
> > program from the Control Panel to uninstall.
> >
> > But if the user's computer already has the required updated Visual
> > Basic 6.0 system files, the 24KB file will run standing alone. So
> > all the user would then need to download is the 24KB .exe file to
> > run the program.
> >
> > In this case no registry entries would be made and the program
> > would not appear in the Start/Programs menu and since the .exe
> > program is not actually installed, to get rid of it would only
> > require deleting the .exe file.
> >
> > So in the near future, freeware OverWrite Version 1.1 will be
> > offered in two Visual Basic bundles: one with the full install
> > version for those who need the full collection of Visual Basic
> > 6.0 system update files along with the .exe file, and the other
> > bundle with just the .exe file for those who have the necessary
> > Visual Basic 6.0 updated system files already installed on their
> > computer.
> >
> > Please note again that once you have installed a Visual Basic 6.0
> > program from Ciphile Software using the full install with all
> > updated system files included you will not need to install another
> > Visual Basic 6.0 program using the full install version again. You
> > will only need to download the small .exe file and it will run using
> > the Visual Basic 6.0 updated system files already on your computer.
> >
> > DETAILS OF OVERWRITE VERSION 1.1:
> >
> > So in the near future Ciphile Software will be offering OverWrite
> > Version 1.1 freeware that will provide 27 preset overwrite patterns
> > and up to 8 user defined overwrite patterns, all of which can be
> > individually chosen and randomly chosen to overwrite your files.
> > You can utilize all 35 overwrite patterns or just one. And you can
> > randomly choose the order in which these patterns overwrite your
> > files.
> >
> > You will also be given the choice to delete your file or not to so
> > you can overwrite the file as many times as you like.
If I sold software, important software like compilers, I'd produce
a video and or flash files that show exactly what the compiler can
do and how it does it as a marketing tool.
Then I'd publish a from-the-ground-up book on how to program using
the compiler. People will only use it (and hopefully buy it)
usually if they know how to use it.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:08:39 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> You are too optimistic. If newspaper reports are true,
> in more than one cases a very small number of foreign
> scientists sufficed to enable a country that was very low
> in scientific and technical know-how to start projects on
> missiles or even nuclear and biological weapons. The
> war on drugs is, contrary to your view, almost lost.
How is that contrary to my view? I have always opposed
the so-called War on Drugs as a bad idea, even though I
also recommend against the "recreational" use of mind-
altering substances. In fact I was pointing out that
the WoD encouraged the development of powerful
criminal organizations.
As to "optimism", a few hops back in this thread I said
what was needed was to attend to the education and
upbringing of people so as to (more nearly) attain a
condition where technically knowledgable folks would
rarely agree to work for evildoers regardless of the
material rewards that might be offered. I didn't
imply that we had already attained that condition.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Digital signature w/o original document
Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:24:11 GMT
"David Sowinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am interested in generating a digital signature that can later be verified
> without the original document. I recall coming across a homomorphic
> encryption/signature scheme awhile back, but cannot find much information on
> it now. Does anybody know if this is possible?
possibly not what you are thinking of ... but there are a number of
financial transactions that have been defined where a document is
generated and then digital signed and the document dissolved and the
digital signature appended to a standard existing financial
transaction.
the recepient is expected to be able to exactly reconstruct the
original document ... this can be because of information in a regular
part of the transaction and/or data known to be in the possession of
the recepient ... in order to verify the digital signature.
a flavor of this has been done for a mapping of the recently passed
X9.59 payment (for all electronic retail payments) standard to
existing ISO8583 payment-card-based networks.
random ref:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CipherText patent still pending
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:31:40 GMT
Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
> Please tell me how you intended the sentence "Consider that so far as we
> know, P = NP but we haven't found any proof of it yet," to be parsed.
As an English sentence, but *in context*, which you have dropped.
The original concern, which one often hears expressed, was that
modern cryptology is fundamentally dependent on P!=NP. My point
was that so far as we know it could be that P=NP, but then how
would that be exploited to break modern cryptosystems? I.e. the
truth or falsity of P?=NP is irrelevant to cryptosystem security.
>From your opposition, I gather that you believe that you know
that P!=NP. How do you know that? The world is waiting..
If you *don't* know that, then so far as you know P could = NP.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Super strong crypto
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:34:29 GMT
Steve Portly wrote:
> The implementations that pop into mind would be temptingly easy to
> modify into much stronger configurations. Unless there is some new
> breakthrough that will balance the equation, I don't see an
> organization like NIST approving such a cipher scheme?
Sorry, I didn't understand any of that. It seems that you are
saying that super strong crypto is easy to attain and that there
would be some kind of suppression of such technology, but maybe
you meant something else? I wouldn't quickly agree to either of
those points..
------------------------------
From: "Michael Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:55:24 +1300
<SNIP>
> You know, I asked Borland why they don't take the bull by the horns
> and put out their own books that teach C++ from the ground up using
> their Builder RAD compiler. I asked them if they were stupid, also.
But there are books (search Amazon for "borland builder"). Just not by
Borland. BTW, what was their reply?
> I told them that it must be a combination of stupidity and no guts.
> I guess they are scared of MS. They are in some sort of
> relationship with MS since they have a license(?) I guess to use
> their MFC library.
True, but that's going south with Kylix.
> I mean, Borland touts their Builder compiler so righteously that I
> would think they would like to strike down the MS Beast and take
> the RAD compiler market for themselves.
Again, I don't consider MSVCC to offer anywhere near the speed of
development as CPP Builder. In fact, I don't consider MSVCC to be a RAD
tool. It's basically a souped up notepad.
> And the only way to do this is to put out their own books that teach
> C++ programming from the ground up using their Builder compiler as
> the programming IDE environment. DUH!
>
> Bunch of IDIOTS they are.
See above.
> I am upset because I like Builder too but can't see upgrading to Version
> 5.0 or 6 when it comes out because I don't feel their documentation lays
> it all out.
What do you find bad about the documentation. I find it very useful (the
help file, anyhow, which is what I always use).
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
From: "Michael Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: Ciphile Software: Why .EXE files so large
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:57:22 +1300
"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:02:35 +1300, Michael Brown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Have you considered using Python?
> >>
> >> It's designed for RAD programming like VB, but it is also platform
> >> independent. It has very extensive documentation, both books and
> >> online.
> >Isn't it effectively interpreted? I've never used Python, but after
seeing
> >the shocking performance of VB when you try to do anything fast I have a
> >great suspicion of interpreted languages.
>
> Python. like Java is compiled to intermediate code which is then
> interpreted.
>
> It isn't as fast as C++, but I find it is fast enough for most uses.
I suppose I always look at these things from the point of a simulator writer
:)
>
> --
> *****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
> "An unforseen issue has arisen with your computer. Don't worry your
> silly little head about what has gone wrong; here's a pretty animation
> of a paperclip to look at instead." -- Windows2007 error message
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:58:32 -0700
From: Sundial Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: National Security Nightmare?
Maybe this thread should move to talk.politics.crypto? ..
>Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> > You are too optimistic. If newspaper reports are true,
> > in more than one cases a very small number of foreign
> > scientists sufficed to enable a country that was very low
> > in scientific and technical know-how to start projects on
> > missiles or even nuclear and biological weapons. The
> > war on drugs is, contrary to your view, almost lost.
>
> How is that contrary to my view? I have always opposed
> the so-called War on Drugs as a bad idea, even though I
> also recommend against the "recreational" use of mind-
> altering substances. In fact I was pointing out that
> the WoD encouraged the development of powerful
> criminal organizations.
>
> As to "optimism", a few hops back in this thread I said
> what was needed was to attend to the education and
> upbringing of people so as to (more nearly) attain a
> condition where technically knowledgable folks would
> rarely agree to work for evildoers regardless of the
> material rewards that might be offered. I didn't
> imply that we had already attained that condition.
--
==================================================================
Sundial Services :: Scottsdale, AZ (USA) :: (480) 946-8259
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP public key available.)
> Fast(!), automatic table-repair with two clicks of the mouse!
> ChimneySweep(R): "Click click, it's fixed!" {tm}
> http://www.sundialservices.com/products/chimneysweep
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 17:09:43 -0700
From: Sundial Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.crypto
Subject: Re: Most secure code for US Citizen.
The DMCA strikes me as one of those laws that was enacted to shut-up a
highly vocal group of lobbyists, probably the Recording Industry
Association of America and the Hollywood contingent. Both of these
organizations were badly "stung" by cryptanalysis of their DVD system,
and are shocked and frightened by "Napster, Etc."
It is one of those laws that will probably generate not-much more than
an illusion of security for those who feel protected by it. Information
and knowledge are two things that are simply not constrained by national
boundaries, and never constrained by laws.
To use another analogy: it has always been a crime to defeat a lock on
someone's door. But the crime has never been "the act of breaking the
lock!" Rather, the crime has been "the act that you had to break the
lock in order to achieve it." That act would have been criminal whether
or not the lock was there, whether it was or was not actually locked,
and so on.
Yet the DMCA spends an extraordinary amount of legal verbage proclaiming
that "the act of breaking a particular kind of lock" is, ipso facto, a
criminal act.
As time goes on, I suspect that courts and prosecutors will find this
particular statute to be more of an annoyance than a useful piece of
legislature. But it was "politically correct."
{ Congress should be required to attend a class on law-making ... Pity
the Founding Fathers never thought of that. }
>Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> Bill Unruh wrote:
> > The only thing which the Copyright
> > Millenium act does is to make it illegal to overcome devices
> > designed to frustrate copying.
>
> And that is being used to make reverse engineering illegal. The
> idea is to put in some weak encryption and call it an anti-piracy
> measure. It then becomes a crime to circumvent it.
>
> > It is also an act which has recieved almost no court
> > challenge. All trade secret law makes it perfectly legal to reverese
> > engineer something, unless you have entered into an explicit
> > agreement
> > with the other party not to do so. You have no protection in law,
> > nor should you have.
>
> Wishful thinking.
--
==================================================================
Sundial Services :: Scottsdale, AZ (USA) :: (480) 946-8259
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP public key available.)
> Fast(!), automatic table-repair with two clicks of the mouse!
> ChimneySweep(R): "Click click, it's fixed!" {tm}
> http://www.sundialservices.com/products/chimneysweep
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
