[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Tim O'Reilly on Randal Schwartz Prosecution
In <vin-1009952035440001@slip-3-22.shore.net> vin@shore.net (Vin
McLellan) writes:
>Under the California Privacy Act of 1993, as it was originally proposed
>by Sen. Bill Lockyer, I believe the owner of that account and password --
>separately, and in addition to ORA, the owner of the computer system --
>would be considered an injured party with recourse to sue or press charges
>against Mr. Schwartz.
I assume you have a more-than-casual relationship with the NSA? That
agency would like to make it illegal for anybody to do any type of
cryptographic activity without permission from the government, and it
would certainly like to see all non-NSA cryptographic research banned.
Spreading the sort of FUD that you are spreading is one of the
mechanisms being used by that agency. Since decryption of any unknown
code can potentially violate somebody's privacy, the privacy
legislation your proudly quote would presumably make it illegal to do
*any* attempted decryption of *any* code if you did not already know
what the plaintext was.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
References: