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.
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?
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
I stopped reading at this point.
It'd be great if people could read the threads here and try to figure out what is going on.
Unfortunately, it looks like the site might already be hosed. How about if we just speculate wildly, make irrational calls-to-action that will never commence, throw in a few anti-government rants, and top it all off with a good old fashion linux/bsd flamewar?
You know, the usual.
In related news today Senator Fritz Hollings, author of the SSSCA proposal, recanted stating:
"I just downloaded the latest 2.2.20pre10 and found censored changelogs! This will seriously impact my l33t hax0r activities. I finally see how my SSSSCA proposal will impact freedom. I am official withdrawing my proposal effective immeditely."
Apparently Alan Cox's plan to publicly demonstrate the absurdity of the DCMA and SSSCA in a place that would hit congress where it hurts has paid off.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
OTOH, the US outlawing something shouldn't mean that all these good things are suddenly no longer available to the rest of the world. We need a place to publish the things which are outlawed in the US, without getting prosecuted for publishing these things to the US.
Such a site has been started (well, not quite, but we're busy getting it up and running) and we hope there will soon be a place to publish crypto research, security information and other useful tools which are not allowed in the US. The only small gotcha is that in order to publish it legally, some kind of access controll will have to be put in place so US citizens cannot get at the archive. Unfortunate, but so be it.
The site? http://thefreeworld.net/
Is Dmitri not a legitimate programmer? I think he is. Dmtitri writes programs which are legal in his country. He has never written a program in the US which violates US law. What other test of legitimate is there?
Funny, I thought he was obeying the law.
Political ends are may be a side effect of that, and indeed this has all the writings of a political snub, but it's nevertheless undeniable that he would be commiting criminal acts by not making this pointed omission.
Alan needs to realize that, although the DMCA does have important and evil implications for the freedom to code and speak in the U.S., it would not be used against a legitimate programmer such as himself. The people who have been targeted by the DMCA have been crackers: people who defeat lame encryption schemes and distribute point-and-click software that allows the masses to pirate. Although I fully support 2600 and Dmitri in their efforts (I have been a security engineer and I appreciate the truly talented invididuals in the field), DeCSS and the PDF utility are simply not in the same class as the Linux kernel and the other software Cox has worked on. He is simply a non-target and he needs to stop pretending that the DMCA affects him.
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
it would not be used against a legitimate programmer such as himself
While it is unlikely that Alan would be arrested for fixing security bugs in the Linux kernel, he is quite right in saying that under the letter of the law, he might be. Even if you merely can be arrested for such an activity, then the DMCA is a bad law and must be repealed, or at least modified very substantially. So Alan should be applauded for taking a stand, even if (or exactly because!) that inconveniences some people temporarily.
As Bill Hicks said, "You are free... to do as we tell you". Right now, it seems that US "freedom" means the freedom to bribe (sorry, to fund...) senators et al to get your pet bills passed.
Imagine a law so stupid that civil obedience becomes an efficient way to fighting it...
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!
The DMCA is only one of the many laws which make the USA into a police state. AC's intentions are good but he's got a lot more battles in front of him before the U.S. can be considered safe from authority abuse.
-CT
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.
Firstly, he's a Brit. They have a sense of humour which is sometimes very subtle and is usually based on 'irony' (as in the saying something different to what you mean, rather than the more American 'Alanis Morissette' use of the word). Some Americans take ironic statements at face value, as is often seen on Slashdot.
Secondly, he's a clever guy. He's being stubborn about this to make a point. If he wasn't stubborn about it, the point wouldn't be made. He is acting correctly according to an unjust law to highlight the danger of it.
He is not being 'dumb' or deliberately annoying, he's highlighting the potential effects of a worrying development in the American legal which could have significant negative impact on all Open Source software developers.
I used to be proud to be a Citizen of US. But it seems everyday that the "land of the Free" becomes a little less free. This is beginning to reach insane proportions. Everyday we seem to pass more and more laws that are seemingly(to me anyway) directly in conflict with Our Constitution. Our politicans don't listen to us anymore. I am disgusted...and angry...so much so i can't even think of words to express my rage at what is being done to this great nation. Our laws were ment to protect our citizens, and ensure the right to "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" I feel as if I have none of these lately.
--"The refuses to bend, he refuses to fall, he's always at home with his back to the wall" --Bill Joel- Angry Young Man.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Oh sure, just the sort of thing we'd expect from a stinkin' EMACS USER!
Republicans tend to not like business that deal in porn, etc, things they find morally offensive (however you feel like defining that).
More generally, "Republicans" do not favor government interference in commerce, and do favor government interference in "moral" conduct. The Republican definition of "moral" seems to coincide with the Religious Right (which is also apparently a vocal subset of Republicans), and does not address most business/commercial practices unless they are also "immoral" for non-business-related religious reasons (e.g., porn).
Conversely, the "Democrat" viewpoint seems to be in favor of government interference in commerce, but against government interference in non-business-related moral issues.
As far as I can tell, "Libertarians" seem to be against government interference in any area. Of course, all of these groups tend to favor any government decision that furthers their more immediate goals, or hinders the immediate goals of the other parties. For the Libertarians, this results in an oddly self-referencing approach where one acceptable role of government is to prevent government interference.
This applies to the United States of (North) America, naturally. YMMV.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
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.
[
As far as I can tell, "Libertarians" seem to be against government interference in any area. Of course, all of these groups tend to favor any government decision that furthers their more immediate goals, or hinders the immediate goals of the other parties. For the Libertarians, this results in an oddly self-referencing approach where one acceptable role of government is to prevent government interference.
I am a minarchist libertarian, and here is my attempt to briefly describe libertarianism.
First of all, the difference between "libertarian" and "Libertarian" is that the second one specifically means a member of the Libertarian Party, while the first one just means anyone who believes in libertarian ideas. Thus Thomas Jefferson could be called a libertarian, but he was not a Libertarian.
The defining principle that all libertarians must believe in (or else they are not really libertarians) is that people own themselves, and the product of their own labor. All else follows from that.
Because people own themselves, it is wrong for government to outlaw behavior that doesn't hurt anyone but the person doing it. Thus it is wrong for government to outlaw smoking, or outlaw eating fatty foods, or outlaw prostitution. (Government may have a legitimate role regulating prostitution, for example to require medical screening of prostitutes for public health reasons, but there is no moral basis for government to outlaw it.)
Because people own themselves, government should not prevent them from freely entering into contracts. Government can legitimately have a role in enforcing contracts. (The major areas where government is useful: national defense, enforcing the laws against violence and theft, and enforcing contracts.) Because of this, if Microsoft wants to require product activation, government shouldn't tell them they can't do that. It's up to people to vote with their dollars. (Note that it was not government that finally dethroned IBM from its monopoly position, it was the free market.)
So, no libertarian can be in favor of a law like the DMCA. The record companies could have annoying license agreements, and libertarians would not be in favor of using government to force the companies to not have them, but the kind of free speech infringement that the DMCA is all about would be right out. And of course no libertarian would be in favor of outlawing encryption.
P.S. In case you are wondering, a "minarchist" libertarian is in favor of a minimal government; an anarchist is in favor of no government. There are many libertarians who believe that we don't need a government at all; the free market can solve all problems. Minarchists like me think we do need a small government to handle things like national defense.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
And the REST of the world must suffer because some american law (which has no jurisdiction OUTSIDE america) exists?
They harrassed an Norwegian, kidnapped a Russian over this law. A good reason for the rest of the world to take notice...