[Cdn-DMCA] On the Sklyarov case
pashley at storm.ca
Sat Apr 6 17:49:21 EST 2002
Alan DeKok wrote:
> Sandy Harris <pashley at storm.ca> wrote:
> > "the only software in the universe that makes your information
> > virtually 100% burglarproof!"
> > I've just checked the site and that claim is indeed there. If Sklyarov's
> > analysis of what they're actually using is accurate, then these bozos
> > are quite obviously guilty of false advertising.
> That's why they say "virtually". It's a legal weasel word to make
> them not legally responsible, but to mislead their customers.
Yes, but if Sklyarov's analysis is accurate, then their stuff is
at the other end of the spectrum from "virtually 100% buglarproof".
Better descriptions might include "ludicrously weak", "brain-damaged" or
This stuff is not just bad like, say, the average post to sci.crypt
from some novice with a bright idea that the pros immediately point
out is 200 years old and horribly weak. The other vendors' products
described on Sklyarov's slides 11 and 12 are about at that level.
The one on slide 5 is far below it.
Nor is it just weak like DES, a good design with too short a key. The
one on slide 13 might reach that level. The method on slide 5 doesn't
even approach it.
My point is that the information
> > I suspect that useful expert witnesses in such a case would be
> > people from the American Cryptogram Association:
> Go back to 1949:
> C. Shannon, "Communications Theory of Secrecy Systems", Bell Systems
> Technical Journal (1949), pp. 656-715.
> Shannon applied information theory to prove that the only
> unbreakable system was one which involved one-time pads.
> If the content "protection" people don't know this, then they're
> incompetent. If they do know this, then they're guilty of lying to
> everyone about the usefulness of their product. That's another item
> in consumer protection laws: The product MUST be useful for it's
> intended purpose and use. If it isn't, then the customer can get
> legal redress from the vendor.
> Ideally, a copyright owner (i.e. movie creator) would sue the DVD
> consortium, because the DVD "protection" is manifestly not suitable
> for it's claimed use. The consumer protection law would take
> precedence over any contract, as you cannot sign away those rights.
I'd love to se that, but suspect it is unlikely.
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.flora.org/dmca/
More information about the Discuss