[Foundation-l] 09-f9-...

Rich Holton richholton at gmail.com
Tue May 8 03:50:10 UTC 2007

Darko Bulatovic wrote:
> Matthew Brown wrote:
>> I know you're playing dumb to make a point -
>> but the US law in question bars components of a contravening device,
>> and the code given is definitely an important part of a HD-DVD
>> decryption device, because without one of these you cannot decrypt the
>> content.  There are other components needed, but they are also
>> available - the encryption scheme itself I believe is publicly known
>> (deliberately so, so that it could be peer-reviewed).
>> This number has no known real purpose except for being a HD-DVD key.
>> (Yes, I know that people are rushing around trying to find other
>> purposes for it as an excuse for keeping it available, but that
>> doesn't change things)
>> -Matt
> Matt I am not playing dumb I really didnt (want to) know, but I am not 
> unintelligent. You now did explain to me that I can use others 
> components with this number to crack  HD-DVD. So did you doing this 
> violate law? Or will I violate law when I crack HD-DVD (which I don't 
> have), Oh can people that don't have HD-DVD be prosecuted if they use 
> this number in documents?
> Is someone walking along the street with a stone in the hand, should 
> police arrest him for possibility to brake window? And stone on the 
> street don't have any real purpose than to break the window? Or should 
> Police arrest them self for making up about stone and window, as that is 
> criminal act?
> My point is that sharing of number (stones, knifes,...) cant be 
> violation of law. And reaction of people here is just good fact how some 
> powerful group can influence with fear and affect people to give up 
> their free speech right.

It is indeed illegal in some places to carry, for instance, a gun. Or a 
knife that is "too large." Whether you use it or not. It's illegal to 
carry it. Period. Civilized people agree to certain limits to their own 
absolute freedom because they recognize that not everyone can be trusted 
with absolute freedom, and there is often no way to know ahead of time 
who can and who cannot be trusted.

So I disagree with your example, and I disagree with you point. There 
are certainly strings of numbers that are illegal to have and to share 
in some places -- a string of numbers that represents child pornography, 
for example.

You may argue that this particular set of numbers should not be illegal. 
  But I don't think you can really argue that there are no sets of 
numbers that are illegal. There certainly are, and (in my opinion) 
should be.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list