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.

Comments

Overzealous, eh?

[Satai]

Hey, remember that time Felten wrote a paper and couldn't release it cuz it was a circumvention device?

Or that time I wanted to play DVDs in Linux and couldn't because I needed a circumvention device?

Or when some Russian dude got locked up away from his family because he wanted to let blind people use eBooks?

Overzealous my ass. This is a problem and we need to take a stand, whether it's "reasonable" or not. People need to understand what is at stake - and what better way to help that process than by showing them?

just making a point

[lophophore]

It seems to me that Alan is just trying to make a point about how ridiculous the DMCA is in this case by taking this relatively extreme position how the DMCA throws a wet blanket onto legitimate security discussions.

Just got back from the Post Office.

[Speare]

The SSSCA, which could become DMCA's darker sibling, has even more for Alan Cox to ponder. In fact, I just finished a weekend writing a fairly long letter to my representatives, and sent it only a few moments ago, so that it may get there in time for a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the 25th.

The full letter is at http://www.halley.cc/ed/politics/2001-10-22.conten t.control.html. I welcome comments, and the letter may be reprinted with attribution.