If something like this HP attack on security research actually flies in court, then I think there is a very good chance that it can be killed on the basis of the first amendment. To play with the analogy used in one supreme court decision on the first amendment: This law makes it illegal to stand up and yell "fire" in a crowded theatre-- but only if there really is a fire. Richard Forno wrote: > Given the recent news about HP using DMCA to shutter a Bugtraq disclosure of > Tru64 vulnerability, I felt it appropriate to chime in. I hope you find my > comments of-value and worthy of relaying onto the list. ..... > The way we're going, thanks to HP's legal geniuses, we may as well call > NIST, NSA, SANS, and IETF to rewrite a new 'industry standard' definition > for 'computer security' that places the vendor's profit and public image > above the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of end-user data and > systems. For all intents and purposes, Congress has already done that with > DMCA and Berman's proposed "Hollywood Hacking" Bill -- they just forgot to > inform (or seek counsel from) those of us working in the real information > security community. > > Bleeping idiots. Congress and Corporate America. When it comes to technology > policy, neither has the first clue . No wonder we're in the state we're in. -- Stephen Samuel +1(604)876-0426 samuelat_private http://www.bcgreen.com/~samuel/ Powerful committed communication, reaching through fear, uncertainty and doubt to touch the jewel within each person and bring it to life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 02 2002 - 12:23:16 PDT