Anticircumvention Laws Seen as Threat to Science

Scott_Marks writes: "Science magazine has a review by Pamela Samuelson on the effect of anticircumvention rules on the pursuit of scientific knowledge. The abstract: 'Scientists who study encryption or computer security or otherwise reverse engineer technical measures, who make tools enabling them to do this work, and who report the results of their research face new risks of legal liability because of recently adopted rules prohibiting the circumvention of technical measures and manufacture or distribution of circumvention tools. Because all data in digital form can be technically protected, the impact of these rules goes far beyond encryption and computer security research. The scientific community must recognize the harms these rules pose and provide guidance about how to improve the anticircumvention rules.'"

Comments

Ladies and Gentlemen

[steveo777]

Behold the technological dark-ages.

It seems that people are getting too cocky, stubborn, and selfish to allow people to use thier ideas.
This reminds me a lot of the general patent holders who don't say a word until they are completely sure they can make no more money off of another company.
Research will be harder and harder to legally perform, and people will not want to do it any more. Technology advances will be a thing of the past. We won't even get to watch movies because we'll have to pay to decrypt them!

I think it will soon be time to go crawl into a cave with a pizza and a knife.

Scientific American on Dmitry

[Black Parrot]

There's a one-page article about Dmitry in the October '01 Scientific American.

It makes the oft-made point that what he did wasn't illegal back home in Russia, but adds a further point that I haven't heard before: in Russia it is illegal to interfere with the user's right to make copies. A lawyer is quoted as saying that you could probably win a class action suit against Adobe in Russia.

The article also touches on the depressing effect on science; the first sentence is -

Imagine Carl Djerassi, inventor of the birth-control pill, arrested at an endocrinology conference in Japan during the decades before 1999, when oral contraceptives were illegal there.

How long will it stay legal to repair your car?

[t_hunger]

I see a time where you will no longer be allowed to open the hood of your car... you could find out that the car manufacturer made design mistakes, you might copy the 'algorithm' (engine, transmission) if you happen to build cars yourself or - god forbid - use those parts to build your own car.How long will mechanical engineers be able to publish their research: Is a engine of type A better then one of type B build by another company?

I doubt that something like that will happen: There are more people interested in the inner working of cars then those that care about what happens inside their computer. So the political pressure to keep cars 'open' is much higher.

How can we increase the political pressure to keep reverse engineering open? The only way I see is by educating the non-geek masses that this is important. But how can this be done? The only way I can think of is by providing everyday examples of reverse engineering: like the car example I tried. Do you know any better examples?

Regards,
Tobias

improving anti-circumvention laws?

[firewort]

I'm sorry, but the only way to improve anti-circumvention law is by revoking it.

Reverse engineering has value in gaining greater understanding of existing technology, maintaining, and improving upon it.

If wily customers choose to violate warranties and license agreements, it certainly poses a problem for companies, but in no way should laws be passed to prohibit them, for the damage such laws do to legitimate research. If companies need a legal method of deterring such behaviour, let them sue for violating a license agreement that specifies no reverse engineering. They should not need, nor get, a stronger remedy.

In fact, remedies like DirectTV used (the small incremental updates of ROM code that eventually locked out hackers) should be applauded. (Even if it was a bummer to those getting free services) DirectTV needed no legal recourse, but preserved their business through creative techological means.

The point is simply this:
Just because a company has made money in the past, there should be no law guaranteeing them that they will continue to do so in the future. It is not up to Congress to preserve the business models of corporations. That duty lies with a CTO, CIO, CFO, and board of directors.