Re: Judge orders defendant to decrypt PGP-protected laptop
At 02:45 PM 3/3/2009 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:53:50 -0500 Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com wrote: I'll repeat: the law is not like a computer program. Courts operate on reasonableness standards and such, not on literal interpretation of the law. If it is obvious to you and me that a disk has multiple encrypted views, then you can't expect that a court will not be able to understand this and take appropriate action, like putting you in a cage. Indeed. Let me point folks at http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/paul/being-acquitted-versus-being-searched-yanal -- which was in fact written by a real lawyer, a former prosecutor who is now a law professor. Thanks Steve. As you know, of course, IAARL. And I know and have worked with Paul. I don't normally do me-too posts, and I don't normally post to this list at all; but I do want to me too this. I've been pointing folks to Paul's piece since the day (a weeks ago) he first published it, it's well worth reading. -Jim James S. Tyre jst...@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to majord...@metzdowd.com
Re: Boston subway restraining order quashed.
At 03:33 PM 8/19/2008 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/federal-judge-t.html MBTA's claim was based on CFAA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Properly, the judge decided (in effect) that CFAA only applies to messing with computers (a legal term of fanciful art), not to speaking about software that might mess with computers. The more interesting question, which has not been addressed, is whether the CFAA definition of computer is so broad that it would include the CharlieCard and/or CharlieTicket. The Complaint alleges specifically that both are computers. James S. Tyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: US drafting plan to allow government access to any email or Web search
Fairly interesting podcast with the guy who interviewed DNI McConnell for the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/online/2008/01/21/080121on_audio_wright At 03:37 PM 1/15/2008 +, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: I believe the proper URL is http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/01/13/dancing-spychief-wants-to-tap-into-cyberspace/ (and as best I can tell, it doesn't require a WSJ subscription for access). --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb James S. Tyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Such a touching song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9HaNbsIfp0 James S. Tyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The HD-DVD key fiasco
of copyright. Several courts have suggested that trafficking in circumvention tools is not copyright infringement, but a separate violation of a para-copyright provision. It's difficult to say how a court would rule on this question, but it does create a specter of monetary liability for hosting providers, even if they otherwise comply with the notice-and-takedown procedures required by the DMCA safe harbors. Is the key copyrightable? It doesn't matter. The AACS-LA takedown letter is not claiming that the key is copyrightable, but rather that it is (or is a component of) a circumvention technology. The DMCA does not require that a circumvention technology be, itself, copyrightable to enjoy protection. For more information about the continuing melt-down of AACS generally, as well as details regarding the various keys and how they interact, be sure to read the coverage on Doom9's forums, Freedom to Tinker, and Engadget, which have been doing the best job reporting on developments. Posted by Fred von Lohmann at 09:36 AM | Permalink | Technorati James S. Tyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: can a random number be subject to a takedown?
At 05:04 PM 5/1/2007 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Finney) writes: A sample demand letter from the AACS Licensing Authority appears at: http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=03218 ... This seems odd to me because my understanding of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions is that they are criminal rather than civil law. Violations would lead to charges from legal authority and not from a copyright owner. So it's not clear that AACSLA has any power to enforce these demands, other than trying to get some government agency involved. That would indeed seem to be the case from me as well. Takedown notices are only for copyrighted material. This is not per se a standard takedown notice. It isn't a standard 17 USC 512(c)(3) takedown notice, it is a non-statutory notice advising Google of possible liability if the allegedly offending sites aren't taken down. Without getting into a lengthy discussion of whether this is a violation of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, alleged violations certainly can be pursued in civil court as well as criminal court. The semi-infamous 2600 case, involving the posting of DeCSS to many sites, was a civil case. Court of Appeals Opinion at http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/?f=20011128_ny_appeal_decision.html. James S. Tyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EFF files papers alleging ATT illegally taps comms for NSA
Our landing page for the case, including links to all publicly filed documents, is at http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ At 12:29 PM 4/7/2006 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: EFF has filed papers in a court case that claim that ATT illegally turns over taps of internet communications to the NSA. This has been reported in several places but I thought I would bring it up here. Excerpt from the press release: The evidence that we are filing supports our claim that ATT is diverting Internet traffic into the hands of the NSA wholesale, in violation of federal wiretapping laws and the Fourth Amendment, said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. More than just threatening individuals' privacy, ATT's apparent choice to give the government secret, direct access to millions of ordinary Americans' Internet communications is a threat to the Constitution itself. We are asking the Court to put a stop to it now. http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_04.php#004538 -- Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED] - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED] James S. Tyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Encryption Software Infers Guilt
The case itself is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mnvol=apppub\0505\opa040381-0503invol=1 Finally, Schaub testified that, in a file entitled research, he found the text of Minn. Stat. § 617.246, which included the definition of minor sexual performance, sexual conduct, things of that nature. He also testified that he found an encryption program, PGP, on appellants computer; PGP can basically encrypt any file; and, other than the National Security Agency, he was not aware of anyone who could break such an encryption. But Schaub also admitted that the PGP program may be included on every Macintosh computer that comes out today, and appellant may have had the text of Minn. Stat. § 617.246 in his computer because of prior allegations against him. ... Appellant first argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence of his internet usage and the existence of an encryption program on his computer. Rulings involving the relevancy of evidence are generally left to the sound discretion of the district court. State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707, 714 (Minn. 1978). And rulings on relevancy will only be reversed when that discretion has been clearly abused. Johnson v. Washington County, 518 N.W.2d 594, 601 (Minn. 1994). The party claiming error has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice. State v. Horning, 535 N.W.2d 296, 298 (Minn. 1995). Appellant argues that his internet use had nothing to do with the issues in this case; there was no evidence that there was anything encrypted on the computer; and that he was prejudiced because the court specifically used this evidence in its findings of fact and in reaching its verdict. We are not persuaded by appellants arguments. The record shows that appellant took a large number of pictures of S.M. with a digital camera, and that he would upload those pictures onto his computer soon after taking them. We find that evidence of appellants internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the states case against him. See Minn. R. Evid. 401. At 11:07 PM 5/24/2005 -0700, Arash Partow wrote: OK, the subject was a little exaggerated. But in anycase feel free to read the following article: http://news.com.com/Minnesota+court+takes+dim+view+of+encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html Regards Arash James S. Tyre mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
