On 5/4/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
And the last I checked, child porn wasn't being printed in everything from Wired to the New York Times.
Even ignoring all other factors, the penalties for willful violation probably aren't great enough to stop them. Even without factoring in the (im)probability that they'd get nailed for it, it's probably cheap enough to do it.. just another cost of doing business.
And yes, we -can- cover the topic without using the number, in the same way we -could- cover the speed of light without putting what it is. But either one would be incomplete.
There is *tons* of useful things you can not do without an accurate figure of the speed of light. Tons of things you can't understand without at least a good approximate figure for the speed of light.
There is one thing you can't do without the exact AACS key, and that one thing is not legal in the US.
Only one, however, involves caving to bullies.
I might attack your character and your motivations for taking the position you've taken... but I believe that you have done a fine job of that yourself.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Really, you can call me whatever you like. Chances are I've been called far worse, so fire away.
My position was, "Our use is academic and educational." That use actually -is- legal, even if we were publishing a full circumvention tool. (You'll notice an image of the DeCSS code has been in that article for years.) They've -threatened- academics before, but to my knowledge, they've never actually tested that one. 2600 got in trouble for their clearly non-academic use (basically, "Here's DeCSS, go rip a DVD and send it to all your friends!"). That's not our stance or mission whatsoever.
Also, there are a lot of things you couldn't do without the exact AACS key, but are perfectly legitimate. Someone may want to study their crypto. (And that person is just as likely to be the person who's working for them and improving it in the future as it is to be someone cracking the next round, or just curious.) Someone may want to look to see if there were any inherent weaknesses in using that key rather than another one. (And again, this may just as well be for improvement or curiosity.) Someone else yet may run across that odd-looking string of digits on some website somewhere, wonder what the hell it means, and punch it into our search box. Don't know of anyone who could even possibly make the case that any of those uses are harmful or malicious.
Knowing how to do something that's widely used to do bad doesn't mean you will use it that way. I know how to make several different types of explosive, but I never have and never would use that to do harm. (Unless you count the occasional basement firecracker in a soda can when I was younger. Think of the poor soda cans!) Our foundational purpose was that there is always a good use for knowledge, and that such knowledge should be available to all. There are many good uses for this knowledge, well beyond cracking a DVD. And it should be available to all.