Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sklyarov Arrest Follow-up

michael posted more than 13 years ago | from the crack-ROT-13,-go-to-jail dept.

Encryption 386

Randy Rathbun submitted a Reuters article about the arrest of Dmitri Sklyarov. Cryptome has collected the press release and criminal complaint filed against Sklyarov by the United States, at the urging of Adobe Corporation. The complaint specifically mentions the ROT-13 "encryption" used by at least one "protected ebook" company, so the jokes made about the DMCA before are now true: crack ROT-13, go to jail. Sklyarov is currently imprisoned without bail. We've received a note that another Russian developer who was at the conference with Sklyarov has posted more information about the arrest - can someone provide a translation in the comments? Update: 07/18 10:57 PM by S : This Las Vegas Sun Article provides more interesting details (Thanks to possible for the link).

cancel ×

386 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What sickens me even more... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#77084)

He faces up to five years in jail and a $500,000 fine

And the average sentence for rape is what, 2 years?

Crimes against property are becoming more punishable than crimes against people. Sort of indicative of a society that values property more than people. Now we're starting to see that attitude reflected in laws. It's just more apparent when you are prosecuting against property that doesn't 'exist'.

Don't buy it! (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#77085)

Don't buy it, it's not about the encryption or about DEFCON... it's about publicity - The popular media doesn't know what ROT13 is... TELL THEM... The FBI is trying to use this as a publicity stunt to "be tough on computer crime"... make it backfire on them.

Contact your local paper and give them this additional information, they may have a story getting ready for print on it.

~ Signal 11

Native Speaker Translation (5)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#77086)

From July 11th to 16th together with coleague Dmitry Sklyarov, who was presenting a report, I attended the Defcon 9 conference in Las Vegas. On the morning of July 16th Dmitry and I left the hotel with the intention of going to the airport. We still had half an hour before the flight was supposed to leave when right at the front entrace to the hotel we were approached by two young men, yelling "Hands on the wall, FBI!". At first we thought this was somebody's idea of a bad joke (fed jokes were very popular at the conference). Dmitry laughed and tried to reply to the two men. The men, in a very rough manner, repeated, "Hands on the wall!!" I was asked for the hotel room key and was asked in for a talk. A little bit later Dmitry was brought in wearing handcuffs. Two more FBI employees arrived who were probably patrolling the street before. Dmitry asked to recuff his hands in front of his body as it was uncomfortable for him to sit down. The request was denied. One of the FBI men introduced himself and said that I was not under any threat and that they only came for Dmitry. He politely asked whether I would be willing to talk. In response to my question of why my friend was being detained he answered that it was based on the DMCA-an American copyright law. The initiator of the judicial process was Adobe Software. The FBI men refused to give any further details saying that they were only following orders. They asked Dmitry to take his things "so that they wouldn't get lost in America". In response to the question of what will happen to Dmitry they answered that he will be taken to the local FBI office where he will be questioned and later on brought before a judge who will carry out the final decision. All of the above happened at the Alexis hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. On my way to the airport I was trailed, very obviously actually. As soon as I tried to make a phone call in the airport a policeman ran up to a neighboring phone and pretended to call. He never did call anybody.

Re:There is one annoying fact... (2)

phil reed (626) | more than 13 years ago | (#77087)

The DCMA was passed.

He broke the law.

Except that it wasn't passed in Russia, where he wrote the code and published it.


...phil

Re:eeek. (5)

Enry (630) | more than 13 years ago | (#77089)

Your reasoning is good, but the logic is flawed. Breaking and entering is a crime, no matter how you do it. That part is true. And so is illegally copying and distributing software or eBooks. What Dmitri was arrested for was announcing "the emperor has no clothes", which never was, nor should be, a crime.

In many locations in the US, having lockpicks is not a crime (source: MIT lockpick guide). HOWEVER, using lockpicks in association with a crime is an additional offense in itself. The same should be true for software.

Oh Goody (2)

gavinhall (33) | more than 13 years ago | (#77091)

Posted by polar_bear:

I'm officially ashamed to be a citizen of the United States. We've just managed to create what will end up being an international incident to protect the "intellectual property" of a corporation.

This really sucks for him, but maybe this will be the straw that breaks the DMCA's back. (Please, oh Please....) If this ever makes it to the Supreme Court I don't see how the law would survive scrutiny...

Welcome to the 21st century version of feudalism. Anyone who thinks they're living in a "free market" is sorely mistaken, and this should be an eye-opener. The power in this country has effectively been taken from the voters and common citizenry and placed in the hands of the corporations and major political parties. I wonder if it's too late to undo the damage that we've allowed to happen.

Effective protection? (2)

YuppieScum (1096) | more than 13 years ago | (#77096)

From the "Track Statutory Language of Offense" section of the "Criminal Complaint" document

...circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects...

Surely the "protection" has been proven ineffective, and therefore this law doesn't apply?

Re:unbelievable (2)

ptomblin (1378) | more than 13 years ago | (#77099)

I mean, how old is that cifer ?

Well, it's called a "Caesar Cipher" for a reason...
--

Total BS (1)

SiliconJesus (1407) | more than 13 years ago | (#77100)

I hate to beat the obvious about the this, but THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT. If I figgure out a way to take something that is mine (read I own it), I *HAVE A RIGHT* to be able to do to it as I see fit. If I want to take the speed delimiter chip out of my car (because I don't like it there) I have that right, even though it circumvents the methods that my car manufacturer planned. Why do companies like Adobe try to enforce these frivolous lawsuits. I for one am going to stop purchacing Adobe software from herein in favor of other tools like KIllustrator (whoops, can't use that name - its TRADEMARKED). Grrr....
Damn you Adobe.

Secret windows code

The REAL reason Strong AI does not yet exist... (2)

jd (1658) | more than 13 years ago | (#77103)

...Adobe secretly ROT-13'ed the part of the DNA helix containing the secret of intelligence, and won't give anyone the key.

Seriously, this is scary stuff. Not because Adobe chose to exploit the law in their favour - heck*, companies need publicity to survive. What is scary is that the media and the majority of Americans see absolutely nothing wrong in Adobe's actions.

*According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a heck is a bridge with fish under it. What this has to do with the above paragraph is best left to the imagination of the reader.

Hmmmm..... Interesting..... (3)

jd (1658) | more than 13 years ago | (#77105)

The filing makes a reference to an alleged offence comitted outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, and to a -reference- to said offence, within the United States.

In short, this arrest would seem to not be about the software, but rather the speech. This implies that the DMCA's coverage of "devices to circumvent copy-protection" includes verbal instructions, not merely physical or virtual "devices".

In the same way as the judge ruled that links to the DeCSS code were essentially the same as publishing the DeCSS code itself, the filing implies that verbal descriptions of the devices covered by the DMCA are the same as those devices.

Ok, so this would seem to explain the action, and provide precident through the courts. It would also imply that, should he be found guilty, he's not going anywhere soon.

On the flip-side, it would also mean that if the arguments fail in court, due to a competent judge, the DeCSS appeals will certainly be helped, as there will then be a precident which contradicts the DeCSS judge's interpretation.

This could utterly destroy America, or it could totally pulverize those laws which exist to create and maintain a corporate Empire.

Pity this wasn't a speeding ticket.. (2)

CoffeeNowDammit (5514) | more than 13 years ago | (#77112)

From the court documents:

Adobe learned that Dmitry Sklyarov is slated to speak on July 15, 1001

And we trust those wacky knuckleheads at Adobe with encryption of literature, when they can't even get verb tense right.

Looks like it's time to boycott Adobe products, citing a "chilling effect" on the marketplace.

".sig, .sig a .sog, .sig out loud, .sig out .strog"

100 years ago? (1)

Des Herriott (6508) | more than 13 years ago | (#77114)

1000 years ago, more like. ROT-13 (a simple Caesar shift) might have been considered cutting edge in ancient Roman times.

I'd put it down to laziness, myself. Why bother writing secure software when you can just have anyone who points out your shortcomings arrested?

Re:There is one annoying fact... (2)

david614 (10051) | more than 13 years ago | (#77119)

He is not a "criminal" until he is convicted a crime. I might add that this habit the US has of extraterritorially claiming jurisdiction over foreign nationals for acts they commit ON FOREIGN SOIL is nonsensical, and bound to backfire on Americans some day. Imagine the stink the US would kick up when a US citizen is arrested for actions he committed WHILE IN THE US!, but is then prosecuted for in a third country.

Sound impossible?

That is what has happened here.

And don't even get me started on Adobe and "corporate morality!"

ROT13 Indeed.

Unbelievable.

D

Does "Rot13 security handler" == "ROT-13"? (3)

dschuetz (10924) | more than 13 years ago | (#77121)

Is the "Rot13" encryption we're talking about here really what we geeks think of as "ROT-13"? I only ask because, according to the PPT slide in the DefCon presentation:
  • Clone of "Rot13" sample plug-in, which supplied with Acrobat 4 SDK
  • Uses fixed encryption key for all documents
  • Key could easily be found as text string in the body of plug-in

It's the last two bullets that I'm curious about. "Fixed encryption key" implies something more than simply "rotate by 13", and "key found as text string" sort of enforces that thought. Does anyone have experience with the Acrobat plugin sample that the 1st bullet refers to?

This may be just an example of some company naming their proprietary system after a cool geek-friendly phrase...

...or, it may actually be ROT-13. Does anyone know for sure? What'd they say at the presentation?

Re:unbelievable (2)

viktor (11866) | more than 13 years ago | (#77125)

I mean, how old is that cifer ?

ROT-13 is a specific case of a Caesar-cipher, which it is called since Julius Caesar used them in ancient Rome, I believe.

So, 2000 years old give or take a few hundred...

Of course this bad hacker must be imprisoned for cracking something that's been secret for so long!

Re:eeek. (2)

elmegil (12001) | more than 13 years ago | (#77126)

Personally, if someone charged me $3000 for a lock on my house for me to only find it was a keyless slide bolt, I'd be suing that contractor rather than supporting their right to hide the fact that it was a slide bolt through their own lawsuits.

Can't tell MPAA from RIAA (1)

gorgon (12965) | more than 13 years ago | (#77129)

From the Reuters article (referring to 2600's DeCSS case):
In that case, the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) and the Secure Digital Music Initiative claimed 2600 Magazine's online publication of a program called DeCSS (news - web sites) (Decrypt Content Scramble System), that cracks encrypted digital video discs, violated the law.
That case has nothing to do with RIAA or SDMI, but instead involves the MPAA. Its kind of sad when reporters don't check their facts.

--
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations ...

Re:ROT-13 (1)

griffjon (14945) | more than 13 years ago | (#77132)

Haven't had my coffee yet, dude.

The presentation (4)

griffjon (14945) | more than 13 years ago | (#77133)

Is available currently for download at:
www.download.ru/defcon.ppt

It doesn't seem that incriminating. Oh, wait, this is the DMCA we're talking about...

ROT-13 (5)

griffjon (14945) | more than 13 years ago | (#77134)

Well, IMHO, anyone using ROT-13 deserves to get hacked. They should know that modern techniques and good security practices require using at LEAST two rounds of ROT-13, or 4, if you're really that paranoid.

I guess my old .sig was more apocryphal than I'd hoped:

--
Under concerns of security and information privacy, the above message has been encrypted in an advanced version of a standard adopted over ten years ago for transmission of secure ASCII-based information over insecure, public newsgroups.

Please be advised that only text-based readers that can handle at least TWO CONSECUTIVE rounds of ROT-13 encryption will be able to correctly parse the information contained herein.

Any attempt to undermine the encryption methods employed will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Chapter 12.

he's *not* being arrested for cracking rot13 (5)

sethg (15187) | more than 13 years ago | (#77138)

Yes, a rot13-based encryption scheme is mentioned in Skylarov's talk, is covered by his decryption software, and is mentioned in the court papers. But the main reason he's being arrested is because Adobe filed a complaint about their own PDF-locking software being defeated, and Adobe's system is more sophisticated than rot13.

If the only complaint against Skylarov was from the rot13 system's vendor, that would be another matter entirely.
--

Re:ASCII Illegal (4)

Tim C (15259) | more than 13 years ago | (#77139)

ROT-13 is just each character shifted by 13 places, so "a" becomes "n", "b" becomes "o", etc.

To "decrypt" the message, ROT-13 again, as "n" becomes "a", and so on.

Some people can read ROT-13ed ascii as is.

To describe ROT-13 as encryption is laughable.

Cheers,

Tim

Woo-hoo! I'm a hacker! (1)

Nightpaw (18207) | more than 13 years ago | (#77141)

If I get busted for my website [flywheel.org] , you guys will contribute to my defense fund, right?

effective (2)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 13 years ago | (#77146)

does not mean 'hard to crack'. It means that, in general, the mechanism protects the work. It doesn't have to be strong encryption at all; that's why the DMCA sucks.
It could be a single 'copy-me' bit, and if someone develops software to get around it, they are violating the DMCA.

Re:hmmm (1)

johnburton (21870) | more than 13 years ago | (#77148)

You can't legally use competing software either at circumvents the protection device by using another product instead.

Re:without bail? (2)

maeglin (23145) | more than 13 years ago | (#77150)

They can keep him without bail as long as they think there is the risk he'll leave the country... And, as a citizen of a foreign country, that's exactly what he'd do.

Re:Complements of our friend fish. (2)

AndyElf (23331) | more than 13 years ago | (#77151)

Nothing like human translation:




11 to 16 of July I spent in Las Vegas at Defcon 9 conference together with Dmitry Sklyarov, employee of your company, who was delivering a presentation at the conference. In the morning of 16 July Dmitry and myself were checking out from a hotel and going to the airport. We had about 1.5 hours till departure. When we were aproaching the exit, two young men came to us screaming "hands up, this is FBI!". Thinking that this is somebody's dumb joke (as the Feds were quite frequently a subject of jokes at a conference), Dmitry loughed and even tried to reply something. However, he was rudely ordered "hands to the wall"! I was requested to surrender a key from the hotel room and invited for a conversation. A bit later Dmitry was also brought to the room. He was already hand-cuffed. Another two FBI agents arrived, apparently they were patroling the street. Dmitry had asked to move hand-cuffs forward, as it was very uncomfartable to sit with hands behind. His request was rejected. FBI agent introduced himself and said that they have no further questions to me and they are here to arrest Dmitry. They politely asked for a conversation. To my question "Why was Dmitry arrested?" I was told that he is charged with DMCA violation -- American law on copyright protection. Investigation and charges were initiated by Adobe. FBI agents have not provided me with any additional details, claiming that they are only executing an order. I was asked a few formal questions, to which they already obviously knew answers. They also asked me to pick up Dmitry's belongings explaining that they "may get lost in America". When asked what is going to happen to Dmitry, they said that he will be taken to the regionl FBI office to clarify a few more things, after which he will be taken to the judge that will make the final decision. All of this happened in Alexis Park Hotel, Las-Vegas, Nevada. On the road to Los Angeles I was followed, fairly inconspiciously. When I tried to call from a phone booth in the airport, a police officer had rushed to the booth next to mine as if to make a call. He has not called anywhere.

Translation (4)

Icepick_ (25751) | more than 13 years ago | (#77153)

Quick and very dirty:

Details of arrest of Dmitry Skljarova from July, 11 till July, 16 I was in Las Vegas on conference Defcon 9 together with the employee of our corporation Dmitry Skljarovym who addressed to on conference on the report. In the morning, July, 16, we together with Dmitry have quitted from hotel and were going to go in the airport. Before flight remained about one and a half hours. Directly at an output(exit) from a door to us two young men, with shouts " hands on a wall, FBI came! ". Having decided(solved), that is whose unsuccessful joke (and of conference rather frequently joked concerning ôåäåðàëîâ), Dmitry has burst out laughing and even something has tried to tell in the answer. However to it(him) in some more rough form it was told " hands on a wall! " . For me have asked a key from a hotel room and have invited for conversation. Hardly later into number have entered Dmitry. It(he) was already in handcuffs. Two more employees of FBI who probably, inspected street came. Dmitry has asked to move handcuffs forwards as with the hands connected behind it is very inconvenient to sit. To it(him) it refused. The employee of FBI was presented and has told, that to me claims are not present, and they came to arrest Dmitry. In the polite form it was offered to have a talk. On my question " for what have arrested Dmitry? " The answer was given, that to it(him) accusation of violation DMCA is showed(presented) (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is the American law on copyrights. The initiator of litigation and consequence(investigation) is Adobe company. More employees of FBI have not informed any details, referring that they only fulfil the order. To me formal questions on which they certainly already knew answers were given some. Have asked to take with itself things Äèìû, motivating it is that, that " as though they were not lost in America ". A question on further destiny Äèìû have answered, that right now it(him) will take in local office of FBI where will clarify still any questions, and then to the judge who will make final solution. All above described has taken place in Alexis Park Hotel, Las-Vegas, staff(state) Nevada. On road to Los Angeles me watched(kept up), and rather roughly. As soon as I at the airport have answered the phone the officer of police has on the spot run up and has pretent, that wants to call from the adjacent phone. Anywhere it(he) and has not called. The details concerning conflict ElcomSoft with Adobe, you can read on a site of ElcomSoft company. The official official report of the officer of FBI which delayed Dmitry, it is possible to look here. Andrey Malyshev, ÝëêîìÑîôò company, July, 18, 2001.

/. their phone (4)

Rupert (28001) | more than 13 years ago | (#77156)

From the article:

All press inquiries to the U.S. Attorney's Office should be directed to Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew J. Jacobs at (415) 436-7181

Or maybe we should just get jonkatz to call them? He's a member of the press, right?

--

Counterattack, anyone? (2)

remande (31154) | more than 13 years ago | (#77160)

It seems that this poor fellow was arrested, in part, for making and distributing a ROT-13 decryptor.

Amusingly, any ROT-13 encryptor is an effective ROT-13 decryptor. And Adobe obviously has a ROT-13 encryptor hanging around.

This means that somebody at Adobe is guilty of exactly the same crime...

Re:Does "Rot13 security handler" == "ROT-13"? (2)

DarkMan (32280) | more than 13 years ago | (#77161)

My interpetation of what he means is that:

The code was a cut and paste from the ROT-13 code, with a few lines changed, so that it used a different fixed position cypher.

In otherwords, it didn't do ROT-13. That comment is about how much time they actually spent writing the plugin (virtually nil)
--

EFF on the subject (1)

zook (34771) | more than 13 years ago | (#77167)

I don't know if this has been linked to, but the EFF has an article [eff.org]
on the arrest, complete with contacts for an EFF attorney on the matter.

Is he represented? (2)

e-gold (36755) | more than 13 years ago | (#77171)

Nobody has yet said (AFAIK, and I've read every news piece on this dangerous case that I could) whether this poor kid has a lawyer yet, but he needs one BAD now, before he talks too much to the cops. I REALLY hope EFF's [eff.org] watching...
JMR

(speaking ONLY for myself, again)

Form letter (2)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 13 years ago | (#77172)

I sent my form letter discussing my disappointment with Adobe's actions to 20 or so adobe.com email addresses yesterday. I don't know if it helped but I did it. Did you?

--

irny@oirny.pbz (rot13) (1)

BubbaFett (47115) | more than 13 years ago | (#77180)

If somebody goes over Slashdot (copyrighted) with a spam crawler and I get spammed, can I send them to jail?!

Re:effective (2)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 13 years ago | (#77189)

Maybe someone should seek clarification on 'effectively' from a lawyer? It would be nice to know what the courts think it means.

Re:The presentation (2)

bwt (68845) | more than 13 years ago | (#77191)

I don't think he was arrested for the presentation. He was arrested for selling the program that the presentation is about. The presentation is just evidence.

He was literally arrested for his ability to read books!

ASCII Illegal (1)

mhelie (83207) | more than 13 years ago | (#77202)

Isn't ROT-13 just ASCII code shifted around a little? If it becomes illegal to crack, wouldn't that mean that it could be illegal to decode plain ASCII into visible characters on the screen?

You could probably read characters straight from ROT-13 to the screen without too much fuss.

-------------------------

Re:There is one annoying fact... (1)

lalas (85981) | more than 13 years ago | (#77206)

The DCMA was passed. - yes

He broke the law. - umm... he has been accused of breaking the law

... and therefore he is a criminal. - Innocent until proven guilty.

The law hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet because it hasn't been challenged yet. Lets not forget that it hasn't been upheld either.

I propose a new form of Discordian ministry. (1)

srayhawk (87427) | more than 13 years ago | (#77212)

Specifically, the Ministry of Silly Lawsuits.

The usual work of this ministry will consist of legal actions entered into consensually by both plaintiff and defendant which, while being prosecuted and conducted in a manner perfectly consistent with the law and with a proper respect for the judicial system, will be perfectly absurd under most conceptions of common sense. In this way the unenlightened may find a chance to accept a Gag Line and spare themselves a fully developed Punch Line.

The legal system being the way it is, funding this ministry may seem expensive, but it is becoming evident that the alternative is hardly cheaper.

unbelievable (1)

spiny (87740) | more than 13 years ago | (#77214)

the mid boggles, using ROT-13 for encryption.
I mean, how old is that cifer ?

phil.

Re:eeek. (5)

JoostT (88174) | more than 13 years ago | (#77217)

The russian was arrested on the basis of the DMCA. But the utility for which the Russian was arrested was not for sale in America when he was arrested.
It is also higly debateble if the utility is a violation of the DMCA because it only is usable by persons who own the Ebooks it operates on, and you need to provide the pasword to use the utility. So it is a utility with a lot f
non infringing uses (fair use anyone). I higly informative collum about the issue is to be found here:
http://www.ebookweb.org/opinion/roger.sperberg.2 00 10712.aebpr.htm
http://www.ebookweb.org/opinion/roger.sperberg.2 00 10715.aebpr.htm
A quote:
"In Russia, apparently, it's illegal to sell software without the ability to make "at least one backup copy of the data it works with." So? That's Russia. I'm in the U.S., land of the free and so on. What does it matter if a
Russian company makes software that enables the purchaser but no one else to make a backup copy of data sold by foreigners who violate Russian law?
Joost

The Feds are coming to get me (1)

geekguy (97470) | more than 13 years ago | (#77223)

I was bored a few months ago so I wrote a ROT-13 C++ program to encrypt and decrypt simple text files. It worked perfectly and killed a few hours. My friend remade my twenty-some line program in 2 lines of pearl.

Now I just wonder, If I would have put that program on a website and gave the code would I be violating DMCA by letting others know how ROT-13 works?

Oh what day do we live in where ROT 13 is still used and people are arrested for telling how it works.

Re:eeek. (1)

Steeltoe (98226) | more than 13 years ago | (#77226)

On the other hand, There's a law against Breaking and Entering my house. Now, in a sense, my house has poor protection - the brick walls are only a foot thick, the windows have easily breakable glass... in short, any fool with a bulldozer or a bit of semtex (hello echelon!!) could break in if they really wanted to. But there's still a law against their doing so. Without which I'd have no legal recourse if they chose to do so. It's my responsibility to take some reasonable precautions, and if I do, then an Insurance company (not the state) will mitigate my losses. But it's not my responsibility to make sure my house is a castle with a moat, portcullis, 12 foot thick granite walls and an army ready with the boiling tar.

Uuuh. It's my house. I bought it. I can do what the hell I want to do with it, including demolition. Don't you think making up such analogies rather than discussing the topic at hand is rather silly? (When reading your text again).

- Steeltoe

ROT-13? (1)

mazur (99215) | more than 13 years ago | (#77228)

*sigh* I guess their next step is sending anyone using pig-latin to jail.

Let's hear it for the land of the free.
<APPLAUS></APPLAUS>

Time to write your congressmen?

Stefan.

Re:ROT-13? (1)

mazur (99215) | more than 13 years ago | (#77229)

Not anyone using Pig latin, just anyone caught illegally decrypting it......LOL

Ah, yes, you're right. Thanks for correcting that. *grin*

Tefansay.

Re:There is one annoying fact... (2)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 13 years ago | (#77230)

He just keeps going to court and appealing until the supreame court hears the case and rules the law unconstitutional


--

Russia Vs. USA (1)

matek (101962) | more than 13 years ago | (#77232)

If this guy gets convicted in US, he will be expelled from the country and will have to serve the time in his home-country - Russia.

This is funny. If you make a porno site, and the go to some very strict muslim country (Afghanistan), then you may recieve a death penalty.

Seems to me that USA is not really ready for this global-information thingy, damn I'm glad to live in Europe..

Yes I will arrest you all... (5)

jgerman (106518) | more than 13 years ago | (#77241)

This post is encrypted in the "english language method", any attempt to decipher meaning from these symbols is a violation of the DMCA. This includes, but is not limited to: interpreting the symbols through use of biological, visual decryption devices, translating the symbols into another language encryption scheme, and digital processing the sybols into a form conducive to aural intrepretation. Thank you for your time.

crack rot-13, go to jail (2)

wunderhorn1 (114559) | more than 13 years ago | (#77253)

Hrm, guess that means that every company that ships a newsreader or programs like this [cnet.com] should be under investigation right now.
Trafficking a circumvention device, right?
Not to mention what they could do to C|Net for LINKING to these implements of mass destruction!

What would a legal definition of encryption be? (2)

jea6 (117959) | more than 13 years ago | (#77256)

I am not a lawyer. Then again, neither are most Slashdotters. In any case, what constitutes encryption? If i teach myself to read ROT-13'd text, is it still encrypted. What if my ebook reader translated the book to Esperanto? Would that be considered encryption?

Any self-respecting programmer would probably agree that there is a threshold of effort in order to consider something to be encrypted.

The DCMA reads: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." Isn't it a NO BRAINER that ROT-13 does not constitute EFFECTIVE control access?

Of course, the DCMA also reads: "As used in this subsection - (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."

So the answer is No, it is effective access.

Whatever happened to section 1201(c)(4): "Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products."

In addition, there are exemptions for "the technological measure, or the work it protects, contains the capability of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information reflecting the online activities of a natural person who seeks to gain access to the work protected" which might be an eBook function.

Good luck, Dmitri.

Terra Rttf naq Unz (5)

jea6 (117959) | more than 13 years ago | (#77257)

V nz Fnz Fnz V nz Gung Fnz-V-nz! Gung Fnz-V-nz! V qb abg yvxr gung Fnz-V-nz! Qb lbh yvxr terra rttf naq unz? V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz. Jbhyq lbh yvxr gurz urer be gurer? V jbhyq abg yvxr gurz urer be gurer. V jbhyq abg yvxr gurz naljurer. V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Jbhyq lbh yvxr gurz va n ubhfr? Jbhyq lbh yvxr gurz jvgu n zbhfr? V qb abg yvxr gurz va n ubhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n zbhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz urer be gurer. V qb abg yvxr gurz naljurer. V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Jbhyq lbh rng gurz va n obk? Jbhyq lbh rng gurz jvgu n sbk? Abg va n obk. Abg jvgu n sbk. Abg va n ubhfr. Abg jvgu n zbhfr. V jbhyq abg rng gurz urer be gurer. V jbhyq abg rng gurz naljurer. V jbhyq abg rng terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Jbhyq lbh? Pbhyq lbh? Va n pne? Rng gurz! Rng gurz! Urer gurl ner. V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, va n pne. Lbh znl yvxr gurz. Lbh jvyy frr. Lbh znl yvxr gurz va n gerr! V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg va n gerr. Abg va n pne! Lbh yrg zr or. V qb abg yvxr gurz va n obk. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n sbk. V qb abg yvxr gurz va n ubhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n zbhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz urer be gurer. V qb abg yvxr gurz naljurer. V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. N genva! N genva! N genva! N genva! Pbhyq lbh, jbhyq lbh, ba n genva? Abg ba n genva! Abg va n gerr! Abg va n pne! Fnz! Yrg zr or! V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, va n obk. V pbhyq abg, jbhyq abg, jvgu n sbk. V jvyy abg rng gurz jvgu n zbhfr. V jvyy abg rng gurz va n ubhfr. V jvyy abg rng gurz urer be gurer. V jvyy abg rng gurz naljurer. V qb abg rng terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Fnl! Va gur qnex? Urer va gur qnex! Jbhyq lbh, pbhyq lbh, va gur qnex? V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, va gur qnex. Jbhyq lbh, pbhyq lbh, va gur enva? V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, va gur enva. Abg va gur qnex. Abg ba n genva. Abg va n pne. Abg va n gerr. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz, lbh frr. Abg va n ubhfr. Abg va n obk. Abg jvgu n zbhfr. Abg jvgu n sbk. V jvyy abg rng gurz urer be gurer. V qb abg yvxr gurz naljurer! Lbh qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz? V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Pbhyq lbh, jbhyq lbh, jvgu n tbng? V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, jvgu n tbng! Jbhyq lbh, pbhyq lbh, ba n obng? V pbhyq abg, jbhyq abg, ba n obng. V jvyy abg, jvyy abg, jvgu n tbng. V jvyy abg rng gurz va gur enva. V jvyy abg rng gurz ba n genva. Abg va gur qnex! Abg va n gerr! Abg va n pne! Lbh yrg zr or! V qb abg yvxr gurz va n obk. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n sbk. V jvyy abg rng gurz va n ubhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n zbhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz urer be gurer. V qb abg yvxr gurz NALJURER! V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz! V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Lbh qb abg yvxr gurz. Fb lbh fnl. Gel gurz! Gel gurz! Naq lbh znl. Gel gurz naq lbh znl, V fnl. Fnz! Vs lbh jvyy yrg zr or, V jvyy gel gurz. Lbh jvyy frr. Fnl! V yvxr terra rttf naq unz! V qb! V yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz! Naq V jbhyq rng gurz va n obng. Naq V jbhyq rng gurz jvgu n tbng... Naq V jvyy rng gurz va gur enva. Naq va gur qnex. Naq ba n genva. Naq va n pne. Naq va n gerr. Gurl ner fb tbbq, fb tbbq, lbh frr! Fb V jvyy rng gurz va n obk. Naq V jvyy rng gurz jvgu n sbk. Naq V jvyy rng gurz va n ubhfr. Naq V jvyy rng gurz jvgu n zbhfr. Naq V jvyy rng gurz urer naq gurer. Fnl! V jvyy rng gurz NALJURER! V qb fb yvxr terra rttf naq unz! Gunax lbh! Gunax lbh, Fnz-V-nz! All that AND copyright infringement to boot!

When trying to explain to a non techie (4)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 13 years ago | (#77273)

Explain first that what these companies were doing, especially the ROT-13 bit, is exactly like taking a document and printing it in pig latin. Then you can explain the similarities. You'll see the lightbulb go off.

Re:without bail? (1)

Dysan2k (126022) | more than 13 years ago | (#77276)

As long as they like. Once you have been arreigned (sp?) in court, then you're tail may rot in jail until death before a trial comes forth. If the prosecution makes a good enough case that you are too dangerous to be released, then bail will be resciended. But, IANAL.

Re:Questions.... (1)

bpellin (128265) | more than 13 years ago | (#77280)

No the DMCA only has to do with making something that has one use that allows circumvention of something that protects copyright. You don't have to profit. I don't remember anyone selling DeCSS, that sitll caused trouble.

I'm sure the spirit of that is that it doesn't matter if you profit, it only matters if it deprives the owner of profit, but I don't think this is spelled out in the law, so they don't have to prove it's making them lose money.

How do you pronounce his name? ;) (1)

skaffen37 (132867) | more than 13 years ago | (#77291)

OK, the guy is soon to become another martyr for freedom of speech and all that, so could someone please post a .wav on how to actually pronounce his name properly? ;)

Re:anyone know how to write to him (1)

aozilla (133143) | more than 13 years ago | (#77292)

Be sure to ROT-13 it. I'm sure he can figure it out, but the cops won't.

Reuters GRRR... (1)

Lord_Pall (136066) | more than 13 years ago | (#77294)

Does anyone have a feedback Address for reuters?

From their article:
In that case, the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) and the Secure Digital Music Initiative claimed 2600 Magazine's online publication of a program called DeCSS (news - web sites) (Decrypt Content Scramble System), that cracks encrypted digital video discs, violated the law.

At least they spelled DECSS right..

Re:eeek. (5)

TomV (138637) | more than 13 years ago | (#77297)

Scary... they write poor encryption nowadays and make up for it by simply arresting anyone who cracks it.

I'm sort of in two minds about this..

  • On the one hand, I really don't like the DMCA approach to IP, and am very thankful I live in a country without it. So far.
  • On the other hand, There's a law against Breaking and Entering my house. Now, in a sense, my house has poor protection - the brick walls are only a foot thick, the windows have easily breakable glass... in short, any fool with a bulldozer or a bit of semtex (hello echelon!!) could break in if they really wanted to. But there's still a law against their doing so. Without which I'd have no legal recourse if they chose to do so. It's my responsibility to take some reasonable precautions, and if I do, then an Insurance company (not the state) will mitigate my losses. But it's not my responsibility to make sure my house is a castle with a moat, portcullis, 12 foot thick granite walls and an army ready with the boiling tar.
But if I were to be criminally liable merely for mentioning the thing with the bulldozer, which seems to be the DMCA way, that would be as close to Justice as Paris is to Betelgeuse.

TomV

anyone know how to write to him (5)

rneches (160120) | more than 13 years ago | (#77308)

Is there any way we can write to him while he's sitting in jail? Even if he knows he's on the side of right, it could still mean a lot to him to get some good letters of support.

I've never written to anyone in jail or in prison before, so I don't know what's entailed.

--

Well, Adobe, I DON'T LIKE YOU ANYMORE!!! (1)

Marketolog (161923) | more than 13 years ago | (#77309)

I'm not only disgusted by Adobe (they seemed to be good...), but looks like it's just about time I would (no, not distribute pirated Adobe Photoshop) give all my friends a copy of GIMP and Linux just to kick Adobe in the "soft spot".

And my regrets to all the hi-tech companies in the US of A - after such publicity no Russian programmer would go to work for you.

(Note to myself: Better stick to Europe)

Re:eeek. (3)

Fat Rat Bastard (170520) | more than 13 years ago | (#77321)

In many locations in the US, having lockpicks is not a crime (source: MIT lockpick guide). HOWEVER, using lockpicks in association with a crime is an additional offense in itself. The same should be true for software.

EXACTLY. That's what's so nafarious about the DMCA, it goes WAY beyond criminalizing actions and criminalizes things that *could* be used.

If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.

There is one annoying fact... (2)

taliver (174409) | more than 13 years ago | (#77327)

The DCMA was passed.

He broke the law.

Now, I personally think the law is stupid, and there are a great deal of other laws I think are stupid. However, the law is not unconstitutional (well, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet), and therefore he is a criminal.

Now, jurisdiction issues aside, what's left to do?

The cynic side of me says: Nothing. We can't change it, we might as well learn to live around it. Until Dateline does a story about how some 14 year old is spending 10 years in jail for breaking the security of her N'Sync lyric download with a captain crunch decoder ring, nothing will change.

And the non-cynic side of me can't think of any reason that its not true.

Re:eeek. (3)

saider (177166) | more than 13 years ago | (#77328)

On the other hand, There's a law against Breaking and Entering my house. Now, in a sense, my house has poor protection - the brick walls are only a foot thick, the windows have easily breakable glass... in short, any fool with a bulldozer or a bit of semtex (hello echelon!!) could break in if they really wanted to. But there's still a law against their doing so. Without which I'd have no legal recourse if they chose to do so. It's my responsibility to take some reasonable precautions, and if I do, then an Insurance company (not the state) will mitigate my losses. But it's not my responsibility to make sure my house is a castle with a moat, portcullis, 12 foot thick granite walls and an army ready with the boiling tar.

You cannot copmare tangible goods to IP. They are not the same. If someone takes your stereo, you are deprived of a stereo and must spend money to get a new one. If someone copies your prize essay, you still have your essay. You do not need to rewrite it. The only thing is you have lost a potenital revenue stream. This is what everyone is trying to protect.


Alternate encryption schemes (2)

Ratteau (183242) | more than 13 years ago | (#77341)

eesDay incrypshunway ebay eppuhway'entlyway ettabay' unday Edubeway'say. ightRay Onway! agGay emay ithway away itchforkpay! oBay'kay oBay'kay oBay'kay. ightRay Onway! agGay emay ithway away OOOOONSPay!
--------

Complements of our friend fish. (2)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 13 years ago | (#77342)

From 11 to 16 July 4 it was found in Las-Vegase at the conference Of defchon 9 together with the colleague of our firm Dmitriy Sklyarov, who came forward at the conference with report. In the morning, on 16 July, we together with Dmitriy left the hotel and intended to go into the airport. To the voyage remained about one-and-a-half hours. Directly on leaving from the door us approached two young persons, with cries " hand to the wall, FBR!". After solving, that this whose- that the unsuccessful joke (but at the conference fairly often they joked apropos of federalov), Dmitriy began to laugh and even something attempted to say as the response/answer. However, to it in the even rougher form it was said " hand to the wall!". In me they asked key/wrench from the hotel number and invited for the conversation. Only later into the number they introduced Dmitriy. It was already in the handcuffs. The two additional colleagues OF FBR, who apparently, monitored street, approached. Dmitriy asked to move handcuffs forward, since it is very inconvenient to sit with the hands connected/bonded from behind. To it there was otkazano. The colleague OF FBR was represented and said that there are no claims to me, and they arrived to arrest Dmitriy. In the polite form it was proposed to have a talk. To my question " for which they arrested Dmitriy?" response/answer was given, that for it is produced the charge in the disturbance/breakdown DMCHA (Digital Of millennium Tyuey chopyrigyut Acht) - this is American law about the copyrights. The initiator of court trial and consequence is company To adobe. More than no details colleagues FBR reported, referring to the fact that they only carry out order. To me were assigned several formal questions, to which they certainly already knew responses/answers. They asked to take with itself the things Of dimy, justifying this fact that " as they were not lost in America ". They answered to a question about further fate Of dimy, that it they will directly now transport into local ofis FBR, where will explain even some questions, and then to the judge, who will make final decision. Entire above-described occurred into Alekhis the park Of yuotel, Las-Vegas, the state of Nevada. They followed along the road into Los Angeles me, moreover it is sufficiently rough. As soon as 4 in the airport it approached the telephone, the officer of the police here ran up and made form, which wants to ring from the adjacent telephone. Anywhere it so did not ring.

bablefish [altavista.com]

Why ROT-13 Isn't Encryption (2)

CritterNYC (190163) | more than 13 years ago | (#77344)

encrypt (en-kript)
tr.v. encrypted, encrypting, encrypts
  1. To put into code or cipher.
  2. Computer Science. To alter (a file, for example) using a secret code so as to be unintelligible to unauthorized parties.*
The 2nd definition (the one we're concerned with) states that it means altering a file using a secret code. ROT-13 is anything *BUT* secret.

Besides, he could always claim that he was attempting to use ROT-13 to *encrypt* the text. :-)

* Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

eeek. (5)

xmutex (191032) | more than 13 years ago | (#77345)

Scary... they write poor encryption nowadays and make up for it by simply arresting anyone who cracks it.

That's some excellent logic. We should have arrested the families that lost people in the Ford/Firestone wrecks because they managed to find a way to strip their tires of tread.

I love America.

This is just unbelievable (2)

ZanshinWedge (193324) | more than 13 years ago | (#77350)

My mind is boggling here. I can't believe that anyone of any level of technical sophistication would think rot-13 was any type of advanced encryption. It's not even advanced for 100 years ago for fuck's sake! Any type of fixed cypher was outdated over 50 years ago and rot-13 is one the most trivivial of fixed cyphers. They might as well have used rot-0 (i.e. a=a, b=b, c=c, etc.) I'm still boggling. Do these companies use this crap because they're lazy or do they honestly think it is good technology?! Really, I'd like to know!

Re:How do you pronounce his name? ;) (2)

onion2k (203094) | more than 13 years ago | (#77357)

His name is encrypted using a special cipher known as 'Russian'. We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you.

NY Times Article (5)

cbowland (205263) | more than 13 years ago | (#77358)

Here is a link to the NY Times article [nytimes.com] on this story.

Welcome to the future as owned by coporate america.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.

Re:Hang on... (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 13 years ago | (#77369)

But the FBI can't arrest everyone who uses Netscape. It's not like we're talking about Napster users (based on the probably low numbers of users in the future compared to their past numbers)... a lot of people use various versions of Netscape.

Now, theoretically, they could arrest the people who provide Netscape.... hrmm... we may be on to something here...

Kierthos

Re:hmmm (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 13 years ago | (#77370)

You realize you may be on to something here...

Hrm... I think the entire staff of every Kinko's in the USA is going to jail then... they have a program that converts other files to .pdfs....

Kierthos

Re:Hang on... (2)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 13 years ago | (#77371)

Hrm... perhaps that information should be made available to the lawyers on both sides, the judge, and the jury...

Anyone have any contact information for a lawyer on either side of this yet? Or has that not been formally taken care of yet?

Kierthos

Profit (1)

jdev (227251) | more than 13 years ago | (#77372)

Sklyarov lost his noble status of benefiting Adobe when he started charging $100 for the decoder he wrote. (For more info, see this article [wired.com] at Wired.)

Now that's not to say he should be held accountable to US laws, but his actions are deemed criminal by the DMCA.

Hang on... (1)

cmclean (230069) | more than 13 years ago | (#77374)

.. just a minute here. I use netscape and tin, both of which have the capability to encode/decode ROT-13 information, am I therefore guilty of using: "a product designed to circumvent copyright protection measures in violation of Title 17, United States Code, Section 1201(b)(1)(A)"?

Oops, looks like we're all off to jail ;-)

cmclean

Re:Hang on... (1)

cmclean (230069) | more than 13 years ago | (#77375)

    • am I therefore guilty of using: "a product designed to circumvent copyright protection measures
    Hrm... perhaps that information should be made available to the lawyers on both sides, the judge, and the jury...

Sweet Christ no! I don't wanna go to jail!

cmclean.

P.S Quoting what you are replying to is good

DMCA defines 'burgulary tools' for software theft (2)

hillct (230132) | more than 13 years ago | (#77376)

Please understand that I'm not defending the DMCA, however, all it is doing is defining what constitutes 'burgulary tools' with respect to software. This doesn't make it any more legal or fair or just, however, there is prescident for these kinds of definitions.

Many states have laws against posession of burgulary tools [touchngo.com] however, most states require that these tools are posesses with intent to commit a superceding crime (usually the top count of an engeightment). It is NOT illegal to sell or distribute burgulary tools [gear4privacy.com] .

This is the difference between all the burgulatry tools laws and the DMCA. The DMCA makes it illegal to distribute (software) burgulary tools. In my reading of the DMCA [loc.gov] (pdf there is no requirement to prove intent, and distribution itself is the crime. The question then becomes, how is it that the DMCA has been violated if the software in question was never distributed inside the United states?

--CTH

--

Call me a felon, but I just cracked Rot 13! (2)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#77383)

I am Sam Sam I am That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am! Do you like green eggs and ham? I do not like them, Sam-I-am. I do not like green eggs and ham. Would you like them here or there? I would not like them here or there. I would not like them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am. Would you like them in a house? Would you like them with a mouse? I do not like them in a house. I do not like them with a mouse. I do not like them here or there. I do not like them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am. Would you eat them in a box? Would you eat them with a fox? Not in a box. Not with a fox. Not in a house. Not with a mouse. I would not eat them here or there. I would not eat them anywhere. I would not eat green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am. Would you? Could you? In a car? Eat them! Eat them! Here they are. I would not, could not, in a car. You may like them. You will see. You may like them in a tree! I would not, could not in a tree. Not in a car! You let me be. I do not like them in a box. I do not like them with a fox. I do not like them in a house. I do not like them with a mouse. I do not like them here or there. I do not like them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am. A train! A train! A train! A train! Could you, would you, on a train? Not on a train! Not in a tree! Not in a car! Sam! Let me be! I would not, could not, in a box. I could not, would not, with a fox. I will not eat them with a mouse. I will not eat them in a house. I will not eat them here or there. I will not eat them anywhere. I do not eat green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am. Say! In the dark? Here in the dark! Would you, could you, in the dark? I would not, could not, in the dark. Would you, could you, in the rain? I would not, could not, in the rain. Not in the dark. Not on a train. Not in a car. Not in a tree. I do not like them, Sam, you see. Not in a house. Not in a box. Not with a mouse. Not with a fox. I will not eat them here or there. I do not like them anywhere! You do not like green eggs and ham? I do not like them, Sam-I-am. Could you, would you, with a goat? I would not, could not, with a goat! Would you, could you, on a boat? I could not, would not, on a boat. I will not, will not, with a goat. I will not eat them in the rain. I will not eat them on a train. Not in the dark! Not in a tree! Not in a car! You let me be! I do not like them in a box. I do not like them with a fox. I will not eat them in a house. I do not like them with a mouse. I do not like them here or there. I do not like them ANYWHERE! I do not like green eggs and ham! I do not like them, Sam-I-am. You do not like them. So you say. Try them! Try them! And you may. Try them and you may, I say. Sam! If you will let me be, I will try them. You will see. Say! I like green eggs and ham! I do! I like them, Sam-I-am! And I would eat them in a boat. And I would eat them with a goat... And I will eat them in the rain. And in the dark. And on a train. And in a car. And in a tree. They are so good, so good, you see! So I will eat them in a box. And I will eat them with a fox. And I will eat them in a house. And I will eat them with a mouse. And I will eat them here and there. Say! I will eat them ANYWHERE! I do so like green eggs and ham! Thank you! Thank you, Sam-I-am! Nyy gung NAQ pbclevtug vasevatrzrag gb obbg!

Re:Form letter (1)

K-Prime (243540) | more than 13 years ago | (#77384)

Could you post the email addresses you hit, so we can all hit the same ones! It seems like that would be more effective.

Re:without bail? (1)

CheechBG (247105) | more than 13 years ago | (#77385)

Pretty much as long as they want.

Just ask Kevin Mitnick, he'll tell you all about it.

without bail? (1)

tenman (247215) | more than 13 years ago | (#77386)

How long can they hold him like that?
TEN

Re:Russia Vs. USA (1)

tenman (247215) | more than 13 years ago | (#77387)

I wanted to send you a personal email, but i can't for obvious reasons, but I would like to ask you what your views are about this topic. What is it that makes Europe more prepaired for the global-information thingy. I'm an american, and I fail to see the difference. I'm not asking to be slamed with spam, and I expect to be mod'ed down, but I would like matek to fill me in on the topic.

Thanks

TEN

Re:Effective protection? (1)

Tangfan (254054) | more than 13 years ago | (#77392)

That may be the way it sounds in the law, but in reality I doubt that that clause means much more than that you can't use pathetically weak encryption which you KNOW will be hacked in no time and expect to be protected under the DMCA.

Re:eeek. (1)

Heywood Yabuzof (255017) | more than 13 years ago | (#77394)

I think Adobe was annoyed that he was selling a product that could decrypt e-books. The bigger problem IMO is that from reading the complaint linked in the story, it seems as though just making that product would be considered a crime.

hmmm (4)

Heywood Yabuzof (255017) | more than 13 years ago | (#77398)

I was wondering what, exactly, he was arrested for (selling, distributing, or creating the product) but then I read this from the complaint:

2. Title 17, United States Code, Section 1201(b) states in relevant part:

(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

Yikes! Am I reading this correctly - you can't even write such software just for testing purposes? Or as proof-of-concept? I thought Adobe was upset about him selling the product, but I guess he can be arrested just for making it.

I also found this interesting from the Reuters article:

U.S. copyright protection law conflicts with laws in Russia, Germany and Scandinavian countries which require software makers to provide a way for users to create a backup copy, Katalov said. ``So, in reality, Adobe software is illegal in Russia,'' he said.


Is that really correct? Anybody know anything about copyright law in those countries? It just sounds kind of strange.

Re:There is one annoying fact... (2)

mikethegeek (257172) | more than 13 years ago | (#77403)

"The DCMA was passed.
He broke the law."

An unjust law is no law at all. And it wouldn't have the teeth it does today (considering the many major conflicts the DMCA has with the Constitution) is all thanks to one man:

"judge" Kaplan of DeCSS fame.

Just goes to show you what damage one rogue biased/corrupt/incompetent federal judge can wreak.

Re:eeek. (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 13 years ago | (#77404)

But if I were to be criminally liable merely for mentioning the thing with the bulldozer, which seems to be the DMCA way, that would be as close to Justice as Paris is to Betelgeuse.

Ehhhmmm, being a foreigner living in France, allow me to assure you that Paris is just about as far away from Earth as Betelgeuse...


Re:anyone know how to write to him (1)

TheWhiteOtaku (266508) | more than 13 years ago | (#77410)

Unfortunately, most of the time, people are unable to contact prisoners being held before trial, as they are usually being held in a temporary location. Should he be convicted, he will probably get a mailing address, though I doubt he'll have access to computers.

If ROT-13 is encryption (1)

bodhisattva (311592) | more than 13 years ago | (#77416)

My dog is a physicist.

Schneier knows best... (2)

Uttles (324447) | more than 13 years ago | (#77431)

``Really, what this is doing is companies are using the law to hide the fact that their security is bad,'' said Bruce Schneier, a cryptography expert and chief technology officer at Counterpane Internet Security, a computer network monitoring firm.
``The information for how to copy PDF files is being treated the same as lock picks and nuclear information,'' Schneier said.

Amen.

I think Adobe is just making a stink here, but there will be no real consequences for the nice Russian man. The have to prove malicious intent and since his software can only be used with purchased versions of PDF for making backup files, I don't think he's done anything illegal. Of course most people on a jury won't understand any of this, so I guess he has a chance of doing some time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re:without bail? (2)

Uttles (324447) | more than 13 years ago | (#77432)

For as long as he's a flight risk. It's at the judge's discretion, but the crime charged (different from the crime or lack of crime committed) is a hostile one, with a foreigner "attacking" an American company, and since the judge probably doesn't understand what's going on, he will be held without bail until either A) the trial starts, B) the trial is over, or C) his defense can pass a motion for his release on his own recognisance (spelling?).

Of course I only know that from watching Law and Order, so I could be wrong :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re:Hang on... (2)

sethbc (411688) | more than 13 years ago | (#77435)

Seriously, Pretty much everyone uses some sort of program to decrypt ROT-13. Does that mean that execs from AOL Time Warner have to go to jail because their company owns netscape?

The DMCA is a generally untested modification to copyright law, but the problem is, the people fighting the law don't have the resources to oppose the people fighting FOR the law. A russian cryptography expert won't have the resources to take the DMCA to court and get it declared unconstitutional, for that matter, neither will the lawyers for 2600. A couple of lawyers in some of the big firms (like berger) should step up and do something. The problem is, large firms often represent the companies that are involved in these cases. This is going to be hard battle to win. The DMCA, should it ever be opposed by a properly supported cause should be declared unconstitutional, but it hasn't even had a chance to make it to the upper level courts. A little IP law shop set up to verify patents and litigate small claims on copyright infringement probably doesn't even know how to write a request for a writ of certiorari.

Hopefully, eventually, the supreme court will hear a case like this and things will be righted, but for now, i guess people just have to be careful what software they write, whether or not you live in the United States. The MPAA or RIAA don't seem to care about whether or not you live in the US (DeCSS or SDMI), and the government seems to go along with who cashes the checks.

Usual disclaimers apply, IANAL (yet)

seth

Re:without bail? (2)

Hostile17 (415334) | more than 13 years ago | (#77436)

They held Kevin Mitnick for over 4 years without bail. Of course he was a felon who had fled before, so that was understandable. However taking over four years for the criminal case to come to trial is neither fair nor speedy and is therefore unconstitutional. He is one guy who should get a good lawyer and sue the government what they did to him, but it was probably part of his plea bargin, that he could not bring a civil suit.


Re:ROT-13 (1)

Sentry23 (447266) | more than 13 years ago | (#77444)

The most scary thing to me about that document encryption using ROT-13, was the fact that it used a dongle and costed $3000 per document. Anybody who pays this much for securing documents has a damn good reason to do so. (any ideas which companies actually used this format ?)
Exposing this sort of information is not a crime, but a way of exposing frauds.
(Then again, it was adobe who sued him, not -whats the name of that company- ).
The fact remains though, that he was arrested for software sold outside the US, by a non-US company, and not for his seminar.
If he is convicted, it would set a strange precident; to be convicted for crimes that are punishable in the US, but were done outside the US, by a non US inhabitant, only because he was in the US.
As i live in .nl, there are a lot of things here i could get arrested for in the USA then.

Questions.... (1)

andres32a (448314) | more than 13 years ago | (#77445)

Wouldnt the Digital Millennium Copyright Act refer for profit making from somebody elses intellectual property?? Did Dmitry Sklyarov actually make a profit from the hack?? Didnt Dmitry Sklyarov actually benefit Adobe showing how really poor their encryption was in the first place????

Thank Adobe (1)

Dutchie (450420) | more than 13 years ago | (#77446)

If the SDMI thing isn't going to be blatantly obvious enough in court, this case certainly should be.

I should go report myself for inventing a circumvention device that decrypts the Supreme Court judge's underwear. I bet I could make it stick (the case, not the underwear) in court too by using the DMCA.

  • Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Re:Russia Vs. USA (1)

Johnny5000 (451029) | more than 13 years ago | (#77447)

Nah, Dubya will figure out a way to have the Russian executed right here in the good ol' US of A.

-J5K

What if the situation were reversed? (1)

Ratbert42 (452340) | more than 13 years ago | (#77448)

What if an American was arrested in China for giving a presentation? CNN would bring us constant coverage, complete with special graphics and a musical theme.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>