full-disclosure - Re: Cisco's stolen code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <OFAF7496E3.D8F5CDBB-ON48256EA0.000ABEC2@int.csc.com.au>
From: tcleary2 at csc.com.au (tcleary2@....com.au)
Subject: Re: Cisco's stolen code

James Edwards said:

>With all due respect...Fair Use does not cover stolen works !

See, this is where we get to the bit where the Global Legal system has yet 
to catch up with I.T.

When I was a Police Officer in the U.K. the definition of Theft was ( and 
had been for a LONG time ):

"Dishonestly obtains the property of another with the intent to 
permanently deprive them of it."

Problem: Cisco still have the code - offence not complete, therefore 
prosecution not possible.

That's why Govt is thrashing around inventing new offences, most of which 
( what's new? ;-) are unenforceable.

And it still doesn't address the global nature of the Internet.

And it still doesn't address the fact that the only proof they can often 
get is transient records in an ISP syslog.

And it still doesn't just "grok" how Computing works, Technically or 
Commercially.

At present, the "offence" committed is like taking an unauthorised picture 
of a work of art and giving prints to your friends - they can still 
appreciate it, it "works" for them but that infringes copyright - a civil 
tort for which you can get sued.

Depending on which country they live in, they may have committed 
"unauthorised access", which is criminal someplaces.

Hence attempts to get "software patents" put through, and draconian powers 
to enforce it, globally.

So, at the moment this kind of behaviour is mostly unethical and morally 
reprehensible, but not a criminal offence.

IMHO, most of the laws that have been passed are not good law, to the 
extent that they do not permit easy investigation and prosecution and 
mostly because ( like the U.S. prohibition laws ) they do not take into 
account the "will of the people" who want to use their CD/DVD burners, 
which they were legally permitted to buy, for things THEY want, not things 
Disney would like them to buy, despite having to "turn a blind eye" to 
where their copy came from.

But the problem for content owners is how to get people to want to buy 
things they can copy more cheaply?

To a certain view, this can be seen as a Caxton issue - the Genie's out of 
the bottle.

Our issue as "thought leaders" is how we can get the issue resolved 
correctly.

Because I for one don't want to go to be a test case for some poorly cast 
law purely for doing my job.

Apologies for the length.

Regards,

tom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Cleary - Security Architect

"In IT, acceptable solutions depend upon humans - Computers don't 
negotiate."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to 
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit 
written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of 
e-mail for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------