How DMCA Rulemaking Has a Chilling Effect On Security Research (vice.com)

citadrianne writes: Jay Radcliffe is a security researcher with diabetes. In 2011, he gave a talk at Black Hat, showing how his personal insulin pump could be hacked—with potentially deadly consequences. As a result of his 2011 presentation, he worked with the Department of Homeland Security and the Food and Drug Administration to address security vulnerabilities in insulin pumps. "The specific technical details of that research have never been published in order to protect patients using those devices," he wrote in his testimony to the Librarian of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office. Every three years, the Librarian of Congress puts a whole bunch of people through a twisted bureaucratic process called DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) rulemaking. Technically speaking, DMCA rulemaking doesn't make things illegal or legal per se, but many people—like Jay Radcliffe—look to the rulemaking for a green light to do their work.

Comments

Ok, this takes the cake

[Opportunist]

I've seen a lot of pointless summaries. Meaningless even. Utterly useless and nondescript, not even worth being probed whether it's some kind of astroturfing.

But this time I'm almost positive that it has to be written by some kind of bot that dug out the words that are guaranteed to press some buttons with the average Slashdot reader to get voted up for the front page. What the heck does this summary say? Someone showed his insulin pump can be hacked. Ok. Then he does some research and that research doesn't get published. Ok, makes sense considering that the info can kill people. And then some nonsequitor about the DMCA is tacked on.

What the hell is that about?

Know what would really be interesting? Whether or not the makers of those pumps have actually reacted and improved their security. Or whether our lawmakers at least plan to do something about the security of medical devices. But what the fuck is this?

Re:Ok, this takes the cake

[complete loony]

Is this more to your liking?

Jay Radcliffe gave a talk at Black Hat, showing how his personal insulin pump could be hacked. If he wants to know that the security research he is planning will not run afoul of the DMCA, he's going to need an army of lawyers to comb through the DMCA rulemaking performed every three years by the Librarian of Congress. This process is a useless garbage train that’s gone completely off the tracks. Copyright law is rarely sensible, but at this point, DMCA section 1201 has spiraled entirely out of the realm of copyright and into a Kafka-esque hellscape.

If your country blocks you

[AHuxley]

Can academics even recover their basic freedoms in the USA? Academic and First Amendment questions seem moot.
Having to show hidden work to a bureaucrat and beg for academic indulgences to even talk to your peers and other experts?
To have to find funds to pay for expensive legal experts to even prepare to talk in pubic or share results.
"When academics are scared off from doing security research, consumers suffer."
Find another nation where crypto and technological ability is embraced, welcomed and can be talked about, sold, open sourced.
Is it fun to know your code has to have a gov ready trap door or back door or the ability to even give a presentation is a legal issue?
Or the presentation is quickly and totally removed by a university. Your hard work is airbrush from academia.
VPN to a good job and offer your ability to parts of the world where maths, education and code skill are still valued and wanted.
The money, time and effort wasted in front of bureaucrats and lawyers is taking away from your inalienable freedoms and pursuit of happiness.