Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you remove the last letter, you get DMC, a.k.a. DeLorean Motor Company. And if you replace the first letter you get YMCA.
Fight for your bitcoins!
What is section (j) of DMCA 1201 for?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
It explicitly allows for white-hat security testing.
Can someone explain how what this guy is doing does not fall under section j?
Did he just give up reading the law at section a, where it says "You can't do this, unless there is a library of congress rule to allow it"?
The code that runs the insulin pump is copyrighted.
There's probably also copyrighted data tables in there that gets fed in to algorithms as well.
And? The word in the sentence you quoted is "bypassing". It doesn't matter if once you bypass the security measure you copy the copyrighted work or not, the law says that you shall not bypass the protection, and the courts have indeed decided that the law means exactly what it says, which is what leads to us having to get special permission from the Library of Congress to unlock our cellphones.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Making it illegal to hack copyright protections means that only criminals will hack the copyright protections.
It will be like the 20's when the prohibition of alcohol caused the criminals to become very powerful. It's the same thing all over again - feeding the big time crime gangs.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Time to lay off the drugs now.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Laws are so vague that most Americans commit three felonies per day so you might as well make them count. The same security researchers who complain about the DMCA blocking their research will gladly go down to the corner to but pot or Torrent the newest season of Game of Thrones. If an anonymous person in a foreign country "leaks" some code from a secured device then hey, that's fair game. Unfortunately, academic researchers feed the need to blab about every step in the process. Do you think those security research firms who sell vulnerabilities to various governments for cold hard cash give one lick about the DMCA? They know how to keep their mouths shut.
Security researchers have their own exemptions in the DMCA.
If you own the devices you're researching or have permission from their owners and you plan to tell the copyright owner about any vulnerabilities you find, it's perfectly legal.
I'll tell them - in 25 years.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.