[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinZt1p4ZzrLQJ-8=KitnZW4=ggpABxphEiYVG6L@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:48:32 -0500
From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com>
To: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@...merofgod.com>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Fwd: HBGary Mirrors?
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Thor (Hammer of God)
<thor@...merofgod.com> wrote:
> It would ultimately come down to “intent.” Technically of course, the
> encrypted file is not the original file. Never will be. Can’t be. They
> keys are not either. Used together they can reproduce the copyright
> data. So legally, there would certainly be an interesting argument about
> what is and what isn’t legal. But there would be plenty of cause for an
> injunction which would put the kibosh on distribution until that legal
> decision was made. It doesn’t have to make sense, and it doesn’t have to be
> strictly “legal” but it is up to a judge. Recall that 9th circuit judge
> Kermit (I believe) ruled against emails on an ISPs server being in scope for
> wiretap laws since, at the time the ISP was reading them, they were not “in
> transit.” Go figure.
>
>
>
> If a judge ruled that you were purposely encrypting data and distributing
> keys to get around copyright laws, he could easily rule against you anyway.
You gotta love "legislating from the bench." Its too bad US
politicians do such a poor job that others have to fix their mess.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists