Status of Cryptography Research in implementation of the EUCD

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Julian T J
> Midgley
> Sent: 14 August 2002 17:51
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Status of Cryptography Research in implementation of the
> EUCD
>
> Owen's point (that arbitrary groups shouldn't be placed above the law) is
> a reasonable one, and generally true.  However, in the case when the law
> being implemented is neither strictly necessary[0], nor a particularly
> good one, there are valid reasons for exemptions for certain activities.

For the moment, let me accept unchallenged your opinions that the law is
neither "strictly necessary" nor "particularly good". If this is true then,
surely, strike at the law! Do not weasel word some special case exemption
from it. Bad law is bad law. A confusion of aims?

> Indeed, the traditional law of copyright is full of such exemptions,
> classed together under the heading of "fair dealing", for example, and the
> different set of rules that apply to librarians, those making copies for
> the purposes of instruction or examination, etc.

These (and many other exemptions in law - see the DPA) are an incorporation
of de minimis, doubtless in case some should be so hasty as to otherwise
ignore it. Sad really.

Publication of a hack is not essentially de minimis though the research upon
which it is based may well be. The effects of publication may be harmful and
wide spread.
>
> So I find Owen's dismissal of the right of academics to exemptions from
> the proposed laws on circumvention somewhat glib.

Make sure we are clear on who is glib. It is the publication and not the
research which should be restrained by law. Your  persistent elision of the
two in argument may be reminiscent of the spiel of a 'find the lady'
cardsharp but it is truly of little effect. Nor is a persistent overlooking
of whether the unauthorised reverse engineering of products is unlawful in
itself. Do not fiddle with these points; deal with them if you can.

>  Furthermore, Owen's
> opinion isn't strictly relevant in this case.  T

:-) The second law of ukcrypto states that 'Owen's opinion is never strictly
relevant'.

'Tis a poor thing but mine own.

> The point is that the
> Directive itself /requires/ that cryptographic research not be hindered,
> and that the UK implementation does not appear to ensure that such
> research isn't hindered.


Repetition becomes tedious. Cryptographic research as with all other human
activity should not be hindered but trammelled by the law. In sum, the law
will act to impede (or punish) as and when practitioners choose to break any
of the myriad parts of it in some significant way; when it is public
knowledge that they have broken the law; when they have cause harm by
publication.  Tsk. Commonsense surely leads you to accept that no activity
or its practitioners can be placed outside the law? What is the principle
you would defend or feel should be preferred?

Owen