On 5/4/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)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(a)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.
--
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.