Sklyarov Arrest Follow-up

Randy Rathbun submitted a Reuters article about the arrest of Dmitri Sklyarov. Cryptome has collected the press release and criminal complaint filed against Sklyarov by the United States, at the urging of Adobe Corporation. The complaint specifically mentions the ROT-13 "encryption" used by at least one "protected ebook" company, so the jokes made about the DMCA before are now true: crack ROT-13, go to jail. Sklyarov is currently imprisoned without bail. We've received a note that another Russian developer who was at the conference with Sklyarov has posted more information about the arrest - can someone provide a translation in the comments? Update: 07/18 10:57 PM by S : This Las Vegas Sun Article provides more interesting details (Thanks to possible for the link).

Don't buy it!

Don't buy it, it's not about the encryption or about DEFCON... it's about publicity - The popular media doesn't know what ROT13 is... TELL THEM... The FBI is trying to use this as a publicity stunt to "be tough on computer crime"... make it backfire on them.

Contact your local paper and give them this additional information, they may have a story getting ready for print on it.

~ Signal 11

Native Speaker Translation

From July 11th to 16th together with coleague Dmitry Sklyarov, who was presenting a report, I attended the Defcon 9 conference in Las Vegas. On the morning of July 16th Dmitry and I left the hotel with the intention of going to the airport. We still had half an hour before the flight was supposed to leave when right at the front entrace to the hotel we were approached by two young men, yelling "Hands on the wall, FBI!". At first we thought this was somebody's idea of a bad joke (fed jokes were very popular at the conference). Dmitry laughed and tried to reply to the two men. The men, in a very rough manner, repeated, "Hands on the wall!!" I was asked for the hotel room key and was asked in for a talk. A little bit later Dmitry was brought in wearing handcuffs. Two more FBI employees arrived who were probably patrolling the street before. Dmitry asked to recuff his hands in front of his body as it was uncomfortable for him to sit down. The request was denied. One of the FBI men introduced himself and said that I was not under any threat and that they only came for Dmitry. He politely asked whether I would be willing to talk. In response to my question of why my friend was being detained he answered that it was based on the DMCA-an American copyright law. The initiator of the judicial process was Adobe Software. The FBI men refused to give any further details saying that they were only following orders. They asked Dmitry to take his things "so that they wouldn't get lost in America". In response to the question of what will happen to Dmitry they answered that he will be taken to the local FBI office where he will be questioned and later on brought before a judge who will carry out the final decision. All of the above happened at the Alexis hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. On my way to the airport I was trailed, very obviously actually. As soon as I tried to make a phone call in the airport a policeman ran up to a neighboring phone and pretended to call. He never did call anybody.

Re:eeek.

Your reasoning is good, but the logic is flawed. Breaking and entering is a crime, no matter how you do it. That part is true. And so is illegally copying and distributing software or eBooks. What Dmitri was arrested for was announcing "the emperor has no clothes", which never was, nor should be, a crime.

In many locations in the US, having lockpicks is not a crime (source: MIT lockpick guide). HOWEVER, using lockpicks in association with a crime is an additional offense in itself. The same should be true for software.

Hmmmm..... Interesting.....

The filing makes a reference to an alleged offence comitted outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, and to a -reference- to said offence, within the United States.

In short, this arrest would seem to not be about the software, but rather the speech. This implies that the DMCA's coverage of "devices to circumvent copy-protection" includes verbal instructions, not merely physical or virtual "devices".

In the same way as the judge ruled that links to the DeCSS code were essentially the same as publishing the DeCSS code itself, the filing implies that verbal descriptions of the devices covered by the DMCA are the same as those devices.

Ok, so this would seem to explain the action, and provide precident through the courts. It would also imply that, should he be found guilty, he's not going anywhere soon.

On the flip-side, it would also mean that if the arguments fail in court, due to a competent judge, the DeCSS appeals will certainly be helped, as there will then be a precident which contradicts the DeCSS judge's interpretation.

This could utterly destroy America, or it could totally pulverize those laws which exist to create and maintain a corporate Empire.

Re:eeek.

Breaking and entering is a crime, no matter how you do it.

Wrong. I can break into my own home as much or as little as I want to. I can smash through my windows, I can break my doors down, I can pick my own locks [although the legality of possessing lockpicking tools varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction], etc. I can even dig a tunnel from my front yard into my basement, using dynamite to blast through the wall!

In many locations in the US, having lockpicks is not a crime (source: MIT lockpick guide). HOWEVER, using lockpicks in association with a crime is an additional offense in itself. The same should be true for software.

I'm with you 100% here... well, 50%, anyway. Committing a crime is committing a crime, and that's that. I'm not so sure that particular methodologies deserve the specific additional punshments associated with them. E.g. if my wife is murdered because of her race, she's still murdered, and locking the murderer up for 20 years or 200 years won't bring her back. But that's another issue entirely: the point is that the tools themselves should not be illegal if they have legal uses.

Does "Rot13 security handler" == "ROT-13"?

Is the "Rot13" encryption we're talking about here really what we geeks think of as "ROT-13"? I only ask because, according to the PPT slide in the DefCon presentation:

• Clone of "Rot13" sample plug-in, which supplied with Acrobat 4 SDK
  
• Uses fixed encryption key for all documents
  
• Key could easily be found as text string in the body of plug-in
  

It's the last two bullets that I'm curious about. "Fixed encryption key" implies something more than simply "rotate by 13", and "key found as text string" sort of enforces that thought. Does anyone have experience with the Acrobat plugin sample that the 1st bullet refers to?

This may be just an example of some company naming their proprietary system after a cool geek-friendly phrase...

...or, it may actually be ROT-13. Does anyone know for sure? What'd they say at the presentation?

Rot-13 was not really used as encryption on USENET

Rot-13 wasn't really used as encryption on USENET. There was no secret key or password, no confidential information so protected (if some foolish neophyte did post a "private" message using rot-13 they were profoundly mistaken in its use, and doubtless learned a humiliating lesson ... just like Adobe).

Rot-13 was used to prevent the accidental reading of a USENET posting which might be offensive to the reader. Things like explicitly sexual or graphic stories would typically be rot-13ed, with a plaintext note prepended saying, in effect, "the following may be very offensive to you so I've encoded it with rot-13, use the 'r' key in your newsreader to decode and view the text if you're sure you want to read what follows."

For a company to adopt such a scheme, with such a history, as a fundamental part of its so-called content protection product is to defraud its customers, in particular the content providors who have been misled to believe their content is, in fact, protected. To then seek to hide their incompetence behind an ill-considered law such as the DMCA and arrest the whistle blower on criminal charges is, itself, profoundly criminal.

Imagine if safety issues were involved, such as incompetently written medical software, and the whistle blower we being treated like this. There would be a justifiable public outcry and demand that the perpetrators of the fraud should be punished, perhaps even imprisoned. This is no different -- public fraud has been committed and those guilty are misusing our corrupt legal system to incarcerate the person who has publicly exposed them. Unconscionable, as are the despicable /. posts I see here supporting the arrests as somehow "appropriate" or "technically ok." At no level is this kind of injustice tolerable or ever even remotely alright, whether it is cloaked in the thin guise of ethically bankrupt American law or not.

Re:he's *not* being arrested for cracking rot13

Yes, a rot13-based encryption scheme is mentioned in Skylarov's talk, is covered by his decryption software, and is mentioned in the court papers. But the main reason he's being arrested is because Adobe filed a complaint about their own PDF-locking software being defeated, and Adobe's system is more sophisticated than rot13.

But the simple fact that ROT13 can even be listed as an "encryption technology" should be setting off huge warning alarms. "Ecryption" should be a bit more extensive than "can be decoded in a few minutes by a five-year-old with a Cocoa Puffs Secret Agent Decoder Ring."

-jdm

PS. Apologies to whatever company made the ROT13 encryption; I didn't mean to imply a five year-old could decrypt the eBook on their own. They may need their seven-year-old sister's help with some of the bigger words.

The presentation

Is available currently for download at:
www.download.ru/defcon.ppt

It doesn't seem that incriminating. Oh, wait, this is the DMCA we're talking about...

ROT-13

Well, IMHO, anyone using ROT-13 deserves to get hacked. They should know that modern techniques and good security practices require using at LEAST two rounds of ROT-13, or 4, if you're really that paranoid.

I guess my old .sig was more apocryphal than I'd hoped:

--
Under concerns of security and information privacy, the above message has been encrypted in an advanced version of a standard adopted over ten years ago for transmission of secure ASCII-based information over insecure, public newsgroups.

Please be advised that only text-based readers that can handle at least TWO CONSECUTIVE rounds of ROT-13 encryption will be able to correctly parse the information contained herein.

Any attempt to undermine the encryption methods employed will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Chapter 12.

Re:There is one annoying fact...

Violate the law. Openly. Loudly.

Nah, we have found the natural evolution of American activism: outsource our patriotism to Russians. Let Russians stand up for our rights. Yeah, that's the ticket!

---

he's *not* being arrested for cracking rot13

Yes, a rot13-based encryption scheme is mentioned in Skylarov's talk, is covered by his decryption software, and is mentioned in the court papers. But the main reason he's being arrested is because Adobe filed a complaint about their own PDF-locking software being defeated, and Adobe's system is more sophisticated than rot13.

If the only complaint against Skylarov was from the rot13 system's vendor, that would be another matter entirely.
--

Re:ASCII Illegal

ROT-13 is just each character shifted by 13 places, so "a" becomes "n", "b" becomes "o", etc.

To "decrypt" the message, ROT-13 again, as "n" becomes "a", and so on.

Some people can read ROT-13ed ascii as is.

To describe ROT-13 as encryption is laughable.

Cheers,

Tim

Re:eeek.

Yes, breaking into your house is illegal and should be. And using eBook reader to "steal" a book is illegal and should be.

But that's not what we're talking about.

This Russian guy has not been accused of stealing an electronic book. He's been accused of trafficking in software which could theoretially be used to steal a book.

It would be like arresting me for saying, "Hey, if you throw a brick through a window, you can break into TomV's house!" or for releasing a report saying, "Yale brand locks are ineffective -- you can break them with a screwdriver!"

--

Could be very funny to do this.

First, read this comment on ROT'13: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/07/18/11362 44&cid=524 [slashdot.org] and note the bit about the Child's blocks.

For a really good press conference, get hold of several sets of these ROT-13 children's blocks, an eBook, and a video projector.

The script would run as follows:

"For those who are not informed as to the issues, here is a demonstration of the techniques used in the alleged circumvention software."

A set of the children's blocks are laid out so the letters are in alphabetical order and are clearly visible. They are encased in a simple harness so they can all be flipped at the same time.

"Here we have a set of children's blocks, which are readily available from many toy stores all around the nation. The blocks have letters on both sides. Watch what happens when we flip all the blocks over."

The blocks are flipped, revealing the letters on the other side.

"Notice how the letters on the blocks now run from N to Z, then from A to M. In the computer industry, this technique is called 'ROTATE 13' or 'R-O-T-13'."

The video projector displays a portion of the encrypted eBook.

"Here is a section of an eBook. Tou will notice that it appears to be encrypted."

Another set of children's blocks are laid out in another harness with the first encrypted line of the eBook.

"We have used another set of blocks to duplicate the first line in the eBook. What what happens when we flip these blocks."

The blocks are flipped, and a line about Big Brother from the novel '1984' is revealed.

Here is the sound bite:

"This case is about the alleged circumvention of an alleged technological measure designed to protect copyrighted works. But a protection technique that can be cracked by a two-year-old with toy blocks cannot be considered by any sane person to be effective."

Ouch. This will hit below the waterline.
--

Re:This is just unbelievable

People "crack" substitution cyphers for fun nowadays. It's one of the puzzle types in those puzzle magazines you buy.

On that thought, maybe that's a good way to explain the "decryption" to the judge. Take an actual excerpt of an eBook encrypted file, then give it to your mother to do just like those cryptagram puzzles. Get her to write up an explanation of how she worked it out, and mail it to a friend. Show the judge the puzzle and her solution, then demand that they also throw your mom in jail for circumventing the encryption on the eBook (and distributing the crack)!

Translation

Quick and very dirty:

Details of arrest of Dmitry Skljarova from July, 11 till July, 16 I was in Las Vegas on conference Defcon 9 together with the employee of our corporation Dmitry Skljarovym who addressed to on conference on the report. In the morning, July, 16, we together with Dmitry have quitted from hotel and were going to go in the airport. Before flight remained about one and a half hours. Directly at an output(exit) from a door to us two young men, with shouts " hands on a wall, FBI came! ". Having decided(solved), that is whose unsuccessful joke (and of conference rather frequently joked concerning ôåäåðàëîâ), Dmitry has burst out laughing and even something has tried to tell in the answer. However to it(him) in some more rough form it was told " hands on a wall! " . For me have asked a key from a hotel room and have invited for conversation. Hardly later into number have entered Dmitry. It(he) was already in handcuffs. Two more employees of FBI who probably, inspected street came. Dmitry has asked to move handcuffs forwards as with the hands connected behind it is very inconvenient to sit. To it(him) it refused. The employee of FBI was presented and has told, that to me claims are not present, and they came to arrest Dmitry. In the polite form it was offered to have a talk. On my question " for what have arrested Dmitry? " The answer was given, that to it(him) accusation of violation DMCA is showed(presented) (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is the American law on copyrights. The initiator of litigation and consequence(investigation) is Adobe company. More employees of FBI have not informed any details, referring that they only fulfil the order. To me formal questions on which they certainly already knew answers were given some. Have asked to take with itself things Äèìû, motivating it is that, that " as though they were not lost in America ". A question on further destiny Äèìû have answered, that right now it(him) will take in local office of FBI where will clarify still any questions, and then to the judge who will make final solution. All above described has taken place in Alexis Park Hotel, Las-Vegas, staff(state) Nevada. On road to Los Angeles me watched(kept up), and rather roughly. As soon as I at the airport have answered the phone the officer of police has on the spot run up and has pretent, that wants to call from the adjacent phone. Anywhere it(he) and has not called. The details concerning conflict ElcomSoft with Adobe, you can read on a site of ElcomSoft company. The official official report of the officer of FBI which delayed Dmitry, it is possible to look here. Andrey Malyshev, ÝëêîìÑîôò company, July, 18, 2001.

/. their phone

From the article:

All press inquiries to the U.S. Attorney's Office should be directed to Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew J. Jacobs at [phone]

Or maybe we should just get jonkatz to call them? He's a member of the press, right?

--

Re:hmmm

U.S. copyright protection law conflicts with laws in Russia, Germany and Scandinavian countries which require software makers to provide a way for users to create a backup copy,

Norwegian copyright law says that it is legal to make a backup copy of a computer program if needed. However, it does not say that software makers are _required_ to provide a way for creating backups.

So no, Adobe software is not illegal in Norway.

/.'ers capable of reading norwegian can find the relevant paragraph here:
http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19610512-002-029.ht ml

Re:There is one annoying fact...

The DCMA was passed.
True. So was the First Amendment.

He broke the law.
The DMCA broke the law. He violated an illegal law.

Now, I personally think the law is stupid, and there are a great deal of other laws I think are stupid. However, the law is not unconstitutional (well, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet), and therefore he is a criminal.

As were the Bostonians who threw the tea into the harbor. As were the patriots who fired on the Redcoats at Bunker Hill. As were the blacks who wouldn't sit at the back of the bus. As am I.

Now, jurisdiction issues aside, what's left to do?

Violate the law. Openly. Loudly. Celebrate people who do it and get caught. Maximize the effort required to enforce the law - minimize the impact of getting caught. If you haven't noticed, there are many people doing this.

If the people who most clearly see and understand the injustice (us) are not willing to risk anything to oppose it, then we should just admit that we deserve no rights and that we will bend over and obey unjust laws.

Can you tell me exactly why we should obey a law that is a violation of our rights and a betrayel by Congress and the Courts of their Constitutional duty. Only a sheep would obey such a law. Are you a sheep?

Re:Secret Decoder Ring

Describe ROT-13 in terms of "Secret Decoder Rings". These plastic toys have been around for ages, lending a familiarity to the average US citizen who is technically uninformed.

Re:eeek.

The russian was arrested on the basis of the DMCA. But the utility for which the Russian was arrested was not for sale in America when he was arrested.
It is also higly debateble if the utility is a violation of the DMCA because it only is usable by persons who own the Ebooks it operates on, and you need to provide the pasword to use the utility. So it is a utility with a lot f
non infringing uses (fair use anyone). I higly informative collum about the issue is to be found here:
http://www.ebookweb.org/opinion/roger.sperberg.2 00 10712.aebpr.htm
http://www.ebookweb.org/opinion/roger.sperberg.2 00 10715.aebpr.htm
A quote:
"In Russia, apparently, it's illegal to sell software without the ability to make "at least one backup copy of the data it works with." So? That's Russia. I'm in the U.S., land of the free and so on. What does it matter if a
Russian company makes software that enables the purchaser but no one else to make a backup copy of data sold by foreigners who violate Russian law?
Joost

Re:Yes I will arrest you all...

I'll reply anyway for the benefit of others. There is a distinction between reduction ad absurdium (the logical fallacy) and reduction ad absurdium (to show the silliness of a concept). Which is why I pointed that out in my original post.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point seems to be that if someone says that they intended to hide something that it should be wrong and not if otherwise. This is the absurdity. To begin with, who determines whether or not something has been "hidden" well enough to imply protection? In this case I'd say rot13 isn't quite enough, though adobe seems to think differently. Contrary to your belief, I believe that if I have some type of media, I can extract any meaning from it I wish, and instruct others on my thought processes that led me to those meanings. The meaning in a painting (especially an abstract one) is hidden (encrypted) often times, but I am certainly allowed to point out to anyone who cares to listen what the meaning is. The artist has no right to try to stop me because he/she did not want me to see that meaning.

If you want to keep something secure, keep it in your head, if you make it public, it is public, I don't care what your implenentation of it is, you've given up your ability and to hide it. And morally, IMHO, you have no business telling me what I can or can not derive from it.

What if I were to write my posts in haxor-speak. Would it be illegal for someone to write some code to change it back to english so that they could understand it? I think not. Otherwise we will have a legal system that prosecutes publishing houses for translating literature to other languages without permission. Encryption is a nebulous word. In fact if it's reversible it's not encryption in the strictest sense of the word, it's obfuscation.

Yes I will arrest you all...

This post is encrypted in the "english language method", any attempt to decipher meaning from these symbols is a violation of the DMCA. This includes, but is not limited to: interpreting the symbols through use of biological, visual decryption devices, translating the symbols into another language encryption scheme, and digital processing the sybols into a form conducive to aural intrepretation. Thank you for your time.

Terra Rttf naq Unz

V nz Fnz Fnz V nz Gung Fnz-V-nz! Gung Fnz-V-nz! V qb abg yvxr gung Fnz-V-nz! Qb lbh yvxr terra rttf naq unz? V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz. Jbhyq lbh yvxr gurz urer be gurer? V jbhyq abg yvxr gurz urer be gurer. V jbhyq abg yvxr gurz naljurer. V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Jbhyq lbh yvxr gurz va n ubhfr? Jbhyq lbh yvxr gurz jvgu n zbhfr? V qb abg yvxr gurz va n ubhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n zbhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz urer be gurer. V qb abg yvxr gurz naljurer. V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Jbhyq lbh rng gurz va n obk? Jbhyq lbh rng gurz jvgu n sbk? Abg va n obk. Abg jvgu n sbk. Abg va n ubhfr. Abg jvgu n zbhfr. V jbhyq abg rng gurz urer be gurer. V jbhyq abg rng gurz naljurer. V jbhyq abg rng terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Jbhyq lbh? Pbhyq lbh? Va n pne? Rng gurz! Rng gurz! Urer gurl ner. V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, va n pne. Lbh znl yvxr gurz. Lbh jvyy frr. Lbh znl yvxr gurz va n gerr! V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg va n gerr. Abg va n pne! Lbh yrg zr or. V qb abg yvxr gurz va n obk. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n sbk. V qb abg yvxr gurz va n ubhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n zbhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz urer be gurer. V qb abg yvxr gurz naljurer. V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. N genva! N genva! N genva! N genva! Pbhyq lbh, jbhyq lbh, ba n genva? Abg ba n genva! Abg va n gerr! Abg va n pne! Fnz! Yrg zr or! V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, va n obk. V pbhyq abg, jbhyq abg, jvgu n sbk. V jvyy abg rng gurz jvgu n zbhfr. V jvyy abg rng gurz va n ubhfr. V jvyy abg rng gurz urer be gurer. V jvyy abg rng gurz naljurer. V qb abg rng terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Fnl! Va gur qnex? Urer va gur qnex! Jbhyq lbh, pbhyq lbh, va gur qnex? V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, va gur qnex. Jbhyq lbh, pbhyq lbh, va gur enva? V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, va gur enva. Abg va gur qnex. Abg ba n genva. Abg va n pne. Abg va n gerr. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz, lbh frr. Abg va n ubhfr. Abg va n obk. Abg jvgu n zbhfr. Abg jvgu n sbk. V jvyy abg rng gurz urer be gurer. V qb abg yvxr gurz naljurer! Lbh qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz? V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Pbhyq lbh, jbhyq lbh, jvgu n tbng? V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, jvgu n tbng! Jbhyq lbh, pbhyq lbh, ba n obng? V pbhyq abg, jbhyq abg, ba n obng. V jvyy abg, jvyy abg, jvgu n tbng. V jvyy abg rng gurz va gur enva. V jvyy abg rng gurz ba n genva. Abg va gur qnex! Abg va n gerr! Abg va n pne! Lbh yrg zr or! V qb abg yvxr gurz va n obk. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n sbk. V jvyy abg rng gurz va n ubhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n zbhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz urer be gurer. V qb abg yvxr gurz NALJURER! V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz! V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Lbh qb abg yvxr gurz. Fb lbh fnl. Gel gurz! Gel gurz! Naq lbh znl. Gel gurz naq lbh znl, V fnl. Fnz! Vs lbh jvyy yrg zr or, V jvyy gel gurz. Lbh jvyy frr. Fnl! V yvxr terra rttf naq unz! V qb! V yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz! Naq V jbhyq rng gurz va n obng. Naq V jbhyq rng gurz jvgu n tbng... Naq V jvyy rng gurz va gur enva. Naq va gur qnex. Naq ba n genva. Naq va n pne. Naq va n gerr. Gurl ner fb tbbq, fb tbbq, lbh frr! Fb V jvyy rng gurz va n obk. Naq V jvyy rng gurz jvgu n sbk. Naq V jvyy rng gurz va n ubhfr. Naq V jvyy rng gurz jvgu n zbhfr. Naq V jvyy rng gurz urer naq gurer. Fnl! V jvyy rng gurz NALJURER! V qb fb yvxr terra rttf naq unz! Gunax lbh! Gunax lbh, Fnz-V-nz! All that AND copyright infringement to boot!

When trying to explain to a non techie

Explain first that what these companies were doing, especially the ROT-13 bit, is exactly like taking a document and printing it in pig latin. Then you can explain the similarities. You'll see the lightbulb go off.

Re:eeek.

Scary... they write poor encryption nowadays and make up for it by simply arresting anyone who cracks it.

I'm sort of in two minds about this..

• On the one hand, I really don't like the DMCA approach to IP, and am very thankful I live in a country without it. So far.
• On the other hand, There's a law against Breaking and Entering my house. Now, in a sense, my house has poor protection - the brick walls are only a foot thick, the windows have easily breakable glass... in short, any fool with a bulldozer or a bit of semtex (hello echelon!!) could break in if they really wanted to. But there's still a law against their doing so. Without which I'd have no legal recourse if they chose to do so. It's my responsibility to take some reasonable precautions, and if I do, then an Insurance company (not the state) will mitigate my losses. But it's not my responsibility to make sure my house is a castle with a moat, portcullis, 12 foot thick granite walls and an army ready with the boiling tar.

But if I were to be criminally liable merely for mentioning the thing with the bulldozer, which seems to be the DMCA way, that would be as close to Justice as Paris is to Betelgeuse.

TomV

anyone know how to write to him

Is there any way we can write to him while he's sitting in jail? Even if he knows he's on the side of right, it could still mean a lot to him to get some good letters of support.

I've never written to anyone in jail or in prison before, so I don't know what's entailed.

--

Re:eeek.

In many locations in the US, having lockpicks is not a crime (source: MIT lockpick guide). HOWEVER, using lockpicks in association with a crime is an additional offense in itself. The same should be true for software.

EXACTLY. That's what's so nafarious about the DMCA, it goes WAY beyond criminalizing actions and criminalizes things that *could* be used.

If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.

Re:eeek.

On the other hand, There's a law against Breaking and Entering my house. Now, in a sense, my house has poor protection - the brick walls are only a foot thick, the windows have easily breakable glass... in short, any fool with a bulldozer or a bit of semtex (hello echelon!!) could break in if they really wanted to. But there's still a law against their doing so. Without which I'd have no legal recourse if they chose to do so. It's my responsibility to take some reasonable precautions, and if I do, then an Insurance company (not the state) will mitigate my losses. But it's not my responsibility to make sure my house is a castle with a moat, portcullis, 12 foot thick granite walls and an army ready with the boiling tar.

You cannot copmare tangible goods to IP. They are not the same. If someone takes your stereo, you are deprived of a stereo and must spend money to get a new one. If someone copies your prize essay, you still have your essay. You do not need to rewrite it. The only thing is you have lost a potenital revenue stream. This is what everyone is trying to protect.

Re:effective

A lawyer is unnecessary. Here is the actual wording of the law:

17 USC, 1201(a)(3)(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

Source is here. [cornell.edu] So Adobe implements ROT-x encryption, sets x = 13 (which must be "applied" to gain access), and has full rights under the DMCA.

eeek.

Scary... they write poor encryption nowadays and make up for it by simply arresting anyone who cracks it.

That's some excellent logic. We should have arrested the families that lost people in the Ford/Firestone wrecks because they managed to find a way to strip their tires of tread.

I love America.

NY Times Article

Here is a link to the NY Times article [nytimes.com] on this story.

Welcome to the future as owned by coporate america.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.

Re:eeek.

This idea that a citizen of one country, engaged in acts within that country which are legal in that country, can be arrested in another country for those acts, is truely scary. Though it does seem to be the latest trend.

This is perfectly normal. It is legal for me to have (consensual) sex with a 16 year old in most European countries. If I tried this in the US, I'd be arrested and sent to jail. When in a country, obey the laws of the country, even if they are different from the laws in your home country.
Don't forget that this is about more than just breaking the encryption. This person was giving a presentation on how to do so in the US, where giving such a presentation is (probably) illegal under the DMCA.

when decryption tools become outlawed

Then only the outlaws will have decryption tools.

Am I the only one who finds this scary?

Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:

hmmm

I was wondering what, exactly, he was arrested for (selling, distributing, or creating the product) but then I read this from the complaint:

2. Title 17, United States Code, Section 1201(b) states in relevant part:

(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

Yikes! Am I reading this correctly - you can't even write such software just for testing purposes? Or as proof-of-concept? I thought Adobe was upset about him selling the product, but I guess he can be arrested just for making it.

I also found this interesting from the Reuters article:

U.S. copyright protection law conflicts with laws in Russia, Germany and Scandinavian countries which require software makers to provide a way for users to create a backup copy, Katalov said. ``So, in reality, Adobe software is illegal in Russia,'' he said.

Is that really correct? Anybody know anything about copyright law in those countries? It just sounds kind of strange.

Re:anyone know how to write to him

It would seem to me writing to Adobe is of moderate use. To me, writing to the PRESS and making sure they get it is probably of better use of people's eloquence. Wall Street Journal, New York Times, LA Times, SF Examiner, Boston Globe, Washington Post and the like are going to be dying to cover this story but will probably get it wrong ("hacker arrested"). : Furious activity is no substitute for getting things done.