Bernstein Cryptography Case Dismissed

notime writes "According to a post to export@list.cr.yp.to, djb's crypto case has been dismissed without deciding the constitutionality of the current regulations since the DOJ said the government would not enforce several portions of the regulations. Bernstein said in a statement that he hopes the government keeps its promise - 'But if they change their mind and start harassing Internet-security researchers, I'll be back.'" EFF has a document archive for this on-again, off-again case against U.S. Government regulation of cryptography exports.

Comments

Unenforced Laws

[murphyslawyer]

the DOJ said the government would not enforce several portions of the regulations.

Is it just me, or does anyone else wish that the government was forced to enforce its own laws, instead of picking and choosing when and where to do so? There are a truly ridiculous number of laws on the books that are rarely enforced, until the prosecutors feel they have a "good" case to drop the hammer on some poor schmuck.

The public doesn't care about laws that aren't enforced, so most people break the law every day blissfully unaware. It would seem that laws that nobody cares about need to be done away with, instead of criminalizing large portions of the population.

I just hope the feds never try to housebreak a puppy.

it's still a major victory

[cnb]

despite what people think how eccentric djb is this is still a major win for someone who actually stood up for what he believed in rather then people who say what they believe about the the SCO case or the RIAA or MPAA.

DJB is accepting donations here for his case and for his open source writing.

Numerous people and businesses have benefited his work and he deserves every contribution he receives.

Why do we have laws like this in the first place?

[t_allardyce]

Why is it that in america its absolutely fine for people to own high-power rapid fire chain guns, but not afew lines of code? Lets say for example (ignoring the fact that encryption is free speech anyway) that theres a war and everyone needs to "bear arms", wouldn't encryption count as a weapon to allow people to communicate without the enemy hearing? so whats the problem? Just because its newer technology shouldnt make a difference. If the bill of rights was written when bows and arrows were a common weapon would guns be illigal because they are much more hi-tech? If they were then people would be saying "hey thats not fair, when we have to bear arms we'll have bows and arrows and the enemy will have guns!"!

And another thing while im at it. If hacking (basically doing anything you like with a computer) was protected under the first amendment (im not saying it would be good or bad, just speculating). Eg. if it was decided that "anything involving bits on a computer was just information and thus speech" then what would happen? companies would go mad from hackers and beef up their security - probably employing allot more hackers to help them. (thats more jobs).

Why is accessing a remote computer without permission an offence? if that machine is connected to a network that you have legal physical access to then isnt it up to them to secure it? Unless your sending 25,000 volts down a line (which should be physical damage), digital breaking and entering is not the same as physical breaking and entering. Every door has a bigger hammer that can knock it down, every bolt has a sharper cutter that can slice it. However a properly secured system should be able to take any pattern of 1's and 0's and be able to survive until it gets that "correct" sequence (which can be too long to brute force), unlike a door which just cant be secured like that.

Ok, this is slightly off topic, im just trying to understand why we have laws regarding what you can do with 1's and 0's