Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Forces Cox To Censor Changelog?
Ross Vandegrift writes: "Alan Cox released 2.2.20pre10 today, which includes security fixes. He is refusing to indicate what security holes have been fixed, as Unix-style permissions could be used as an anti-circumvention device. The thread starts here. " It'd be great if people could read the threads here and try to figure out what is going on. I'm a little lost, but it looks like he's being overzealous.
I stopped reading at this point.
And if you read the thread, you'll see that Alan Cox's assertion is that UNIX-style permissions can be used for digital rights managment purposes. That is, they can be used as an access control to protect copyrighted works that are covered under the DMCA. Therefore, disclosing a security vulnerability which can subvert UNIX-style permissions is equivalent to describing how to circumvent an access-control device as described under the DMCA.
I would guess that the specific DMCA clause that Alan's affected by is this one:
(2) 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 a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
It would seem Alan's conjecture is that describing a specific vulnerability in the Linux kernel that allows subverting some aspect of Linux's permission structure (which can be used as an access control device to a protected work) constitutes "traffic[king] in any technology [...] or part thereof" that would allow someone to circumvent the access control. Under the current interpretation of the law (re: Skylarov), detailing a security weakness in a product seems to (a) constitute such trafficking, and (b) seems to fit one of the three clauses 2(A), 2(B), or 2(C) above. (Notice they're connected by an 'or', so it's is necessary to fit only one of the three to be in violation of DMCA. I'm guessing the kernel information would fit 2(A).)
I'm so proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free[*]. :-P
--Joe[*] For a suitably narrow definition of free.
Program Intellivision!
I don't think he's joking at all. I think he's dead serious, and I think he's absolutely right to be. European programmers can no longer travel to the United States without risking being arrested for doing things which are perfectly legal where they did them (and in 95% of the rest of the world). Until you guys get this sorted, you have to face up to the fact that the rest of us can't safely share stuff with you.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
No, it was correctly identified as Ex Post Facto. Statute of Limitations refers to the amount of time that may pass between the comission of a crime and the prosecution, however the law must have been in place at the time of the "incident" or no prosecution can take place.
I'm not sure how trying to retroactively remove the statute of limitations and retroactively declaring computer crimes as acts of terrorism will fly with the courts -- it could be argued that Ex Post Facto protects people from being branded as terrorists because their actions were not legally "acts of terrorism" when they occured. Not that Ashcroft seems to care about the Constitution one way or the other right now.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Indeed, the US outlawing something is one thing. That's their business, if it turns out to hurt them too much they can always revert the law. It's a democratic country, isn't it ?
'Fraid not. The U.S is not a democracy. It's a Republic. And it's very rapidly turning into a Corporate Republic.
Voting and all this democracy talk is just masturbation. If people's votes actually mattered then you'd have much higher voter turnouts. If you could actually vote for your party instead of an "electoral college" then maybe you'd be closer to democracy as well.
And the most important distinction between a republic and a democracy is that you can't vote on laws and bills. Only the government can. In a true democracy 51% of the public can piss on the other 49%. But in the U.S the government pisses on everyone.
--
Garett
1. I vote in Every single election
2. I realize that despite what has occured this is still by far one of the better places to live.
3. I shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to fight my own govenments stupidity, I am a poor working guy with barely enough money to keep the heat on in the winter at times. I it shouldn't take $$$ to change laws, it should take desire. I have tons of that and write letters to congressman till my fingers ache, and get replys that basically add up too "Thats the way it is and I am not gonna do anything about it, sorry but thanks for your thoughts" I have one from MA-Sentor John Kerry, I can transcribe it if you would really like.
4. For what its worth monitoring the populous for doing stupid illegal things doesn't even bother me, as I do my best to act within the law. Our representivies passing laws that the people never get a say in, or are many times not even aware are happening, annoys me!
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.