What if an encryption is used that involves not simply a passphrase, but a segment of original code in order to unlock the data? For example, the 'key' which I remember, in my head, might be '7345632', but that is only a reference used to generate the passphrase by computing the digits of pi and using some number of them starting at digit 7345632 (or some other algorithm). Thus I could use a passphrase generating program of my own design, that I could type in from memory - a python script, for example. That code could generate a passphrase, put it on the clipboard, and I could paste it in to my encryption program blindly.
Thus all I actually know is the algorithm and the seed I used. What could they compel me to reveal? The algorithm...even the existence of the algorithm? If I simply reveal the seed but not the algorithm, can they compel me to make it work for them?
The 'encryption keys are the same as keys for locks' comparison is incorrect. If keys for locks were the same, you could take a key and turn a pile of documents into something you could not identify as containing data. A pile of random, innocuous objects, with not even the flavor of original meaning. Any conclusions you could draw from the objects in the pile would be misleading - this bit here might look like a dog, but the original documents had nothing to do with dogs. The pile of objects would be indistinguishable from a pile containing no meaning. Locks and keys do not work that way; locks and keys work like physical objects limited by physical laws - encryption would be MAGICAL if it were to occur in physical reality.
Well, my copy of Myst III, which I purchased for my Mother, installed just fine. It runs perfectly on her old machine. It runs fine on all 4 different machines I've tested it on at home. These machines ranged from an old Pent Pro machine with an overdrive proc in it running ME, to a dual-proc machine running win2000. The software runs flawlessly on all of them - including the 2000 machines, which are specifically NOT guaranteed to work.
I also recieved a manual with my copy of Myst III. That's the little book with the pages in it with words on them - it was in the CD case. It has the story-type info in it as well as the instructions for installation and play.
The game itself provides an amazingly intuitive introduction into the game world, a tradition among the Myst series. After an introductory video sequence, you find yourself staring out over a vista. Someone is speaking to you, apparently, from behind. You realize suddenly that the movie is over - you're in control.
The first time I turned and saw the integrated FMV of another person, I must admit I was impressed. I had no intention of playing this game myself, but after a few moments I realized I would be playing it for sure.
So imagine if you're me, and you're reviewing this game. You've tested it on 4 different machines with different OS's and hardware, and had zero problems. Are you going to give it a bad review based on that experience? I hardly believe you would give it a second thought, and would actually review the game content.
Faulting someone for using safedisc is hardly something related to the review of a game. It's a bad mark on the company, certainly. People out there who have problems with safedisc games already know this. I had no problems with safedisc on my machines, however, I checked the web (http://www.gamecopyworld.com) and easily found a safedisc bypass for this game.
-nad
Slashdot Mirror
What if an encryption is used that involves not simply a passphrase, but a segment of original code in order to unlock the data? For example, the 'key' which I remember, in my head, might be '7345632', but that is only a reference used to generate the passphrase by computing the digits of pi and using some number of them starting at digit 7345632 (or some other algorithm). Thus I could use a passphrase generating program of my own design, that I could type in from memory - a python script, for example. That code could generate a passphrase, put it on the clipboard, and I could paste it in to my encryption program blindly.
Thus all I actually know is the algorithm and the seed I used. What could they compel me to reveal? The algorithm...even the existence of the algorithm? If I simply reveal the seed but not the algorithm, can they compel me to make it work for them?
The 'encryption keys are the same as keys for locks' comparison is incorrect. If keys for locks were the same, you could take a key and turn a pile of documents into something you could not identify as containing data. A pile of random, innocuous objects, with not even the flavor of original meaning. Any conclusions you could draw from the objects in the pile would be misleading - this bit here might look like a dog, but the original documents had nothing to do with dogs. The pile of objects would be indistinguishable from a pile containing no meaning. Locks and keys do not work that way; locks and keys work like physical objects limited by physical laws - encryption would be MAGICAL if it were to occur in physical reality.
Well, my copy of Myst III, which I purchased for my Mother, installed just fine. It runs perfectly on her old machine. It runs fine on all 4 different machines I've tested it on at home. These machines ranged from an old Pent Pro machine with an overdrive proc in it running ME, to a dual-proc machine running win2000. The software runs flawlessly on all of them - including the 2000 machines, which are specifically NOT guaranteed to work. I also recieved a manual with my copy of Myst III. That's the little book with the pages in it with words on them - it was in the CD case. It has the story-type info in it as well as the instructions for installation and play. The game itself provides an amazingly intuitive introduction into the game world, a tradition among the Myst series. After an introductory video sequence, you find yourself staring out over a vista. Someone is speaking to you, apparently, from behind. You realize suddenly that the movie is over - you're in control. The first time I turned and saw the integrated FMV of another person, I must admit I was impressed. I had no intention of playing this game myself, but after a few moments I realized I would be playing it for sure.
So imagine if you're me, and you're reviewing this game. You've tested it on 4 different machines with different OS's and hardware, and had zero problems. Are you going to give it a bad review based on that experience? I hardly believe you would give it a second thought, and would actually review the game content.
Faulting someone for using safedisc is hardly something related to the review of a game. It's a bad mark on the company, certainly. People out there who have problems with safedisc games already know this. I had no problems with safedisc on my machines, however, I checked the web (http://www.gamecopyworld.com) and easily found a safedisc bypass for this game.
-nad