Status of Cryptography Research in implementation of the EUCD

[Neil McEvoy]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Lewis" <oml@sysrx.uk.com>
To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:09 PM
Subject: RE: Status of Cryptography Research in implementation of the EUCD


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> > [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Neil McEvoy
> > Sent: 15 August 2002 10:52
> > To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> > Subject: Re: Status of Cryptography Research in implementation of the
> > EUCD
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Owen Lewis" <oml@sysrx.uk.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > - If a researcher publishes a method to breach copyright the only good
> > that
> > > is likely served is that of thieves and there is a palpable risk of
harm
> > to
> > > all the holders of copyright protected by that method as well as to
the
> > > owner of the method itself.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > In the case that the method is already known to thieves, or
> > likely to become
> > so,
>
> In which case the 'research' is either non-existent or trivial.
>
> No. We are discussing the application of cutting-edge expertise.
>

No. We are discussing the application of expertise that's at least equal to
that applied by purveyors of self-styled copyright protection schemes, which
may or may not be cutting-edge.

> .....then users and potential users of the copy protection scheme are
> > protected from undue reliance on a flawed technique. For me, the
> > case is not
> > so clear as to restrict anyone's right to free speech.
>
> 'Free speech' is not ever untrammelled.
>

Indeed. But my position, implied above, is that it should only be trammelled
where there is a consensus that there is a compelling reason so to do. Your
proposed restriction on free speech fails my consensus test, insofar as most
contributors to this thread (including me, as it happens) do not find your
argument compelling.

Neil