This is a pretty long entry again, so some people might prefer
to skip to the end of my
diary entry. Thanks.
What a world! The NSA is publishing
VHDL source for hardware
implementations of state-of-the-art cryptographic algorithms
on the Internet. It's not copyrighted, but if it were, I think their
disclaimer would even qualify as open source! Remember, this is
the same Federal government which investigated Phil Zimmermann for
export control violations in connection with the export of PGP. Now
Red Hat is shipping
OpenSSH
and the NSA is posting hardware crypto
implementation details on the Internet.
I've been teaching at work again. That's lots of fun; we did a lot
of stuff on networking, and I learned a lot from it. I think I need
to be a teacher, and ideally I should teach more than just Linux
system administration.
My collage is done, really done, and signed, and sealed, and delivered.
Can it be? My room looks so empty without all the collage scraps and
scissors and source materials.
I've been in Berkeley a lot this week, once for CalLUG and then again
just for a visit. And I bought into a machine in commercial colocation
(my share being about what I've been paying for a whole machine in
noncommercial colocation at the
LinuxCabal).
In a restaurant and again in a store, I thought about the fact that
I could actually now buy wine or beer or liquor legally. That's an
odd feeling, because I'm used to thinking of them as illegal drugs.
It's like they were suddenly decriminalized (but nobody noticed).
My short-term goals are to enjoy, if possible, a party on Friday the
13th (absit omen),
and get to Davis and Santa Cruz to visit friends of
mine who've recently moved to each place. Also, my cousin who is
an artist is having an open
studio this weekend, and I'd like to go. And maybe I'll also
make it to the
Exploratorium again
soon.
I managed to hurt my right arm again, so I'm not going to volunteer
to do ioctl documentation just yet. More to the point, I need to
be more careful not to carry heavy bags or type with that arm.
I actually had conversations with a few strangers this week; that's
really very unusual for me. And I certainly had a good time talking
to some new and old friends.
I hope everybody has a good time at
ALS.
Why are professional certification exams like the
LPI paid for by
prospective employees rather than prospective employers? Yes,
requiring people to pay for standardized tests (like the
LSAT, which a friend of mine took
this morning) makes them prove to some extent that they are serious
and that they do believe in their own qualifications, but the people
who want the information and who believe it is meaningful and useful
are the employers (or other institutions accepting applicants on the
basis of their documented qualifications).
Cliff Stoll is
really behind
Acme Klein Bottles. I
love it! So now I need to give those and
Clever Clocks as gifts.
joey showed me
Perl in Latin.
"O let me be awake, my
God! / Or let me sleep alway."
shaleh, do you still plan to
create
a Latin locale for GNU stuff?
Litigation
The
Eldred v.
Reno appeal was argued in the DC Circuit. Sounds like
fun. At least Eric Eldred
had a good time... wouldn't you, if Larry Lessig were your lawyer?
My condolences to Waldo, Lindsay, and Bennett on
the
disposition of their appeal. It might have
been a major case in
trade secrets, clickwrap licensing, and gratuitous licensing, but
instead...
That case has some relevance for the people who are getting copies of
the Universal v. Reimerdes injunction along with demand letters from
the MPAA. Jacquith et al.'s appeal suggests that nonparties are only
very rarely "bound by an injunction" and contempt proceedings will
not be likely to succeed except against parties or people who are
actually (for example) working for the parties.
In particular, the court said
The coin, however, has a flip side. A nonparty who has acted
independently of the enjoined defendant will not be bound by the
injunction, and, if she has had no opportunity to contest its
validity, cannot be found in contempt without a separate adjudication.
See id.; see also Alemite, 42 F.2d at 832 (declaring that a decree
which purports to enjoin nonparties who are neither abettors nor
legally identified with the defendant "is pro tanto brutum fulmen,"
and may safely be ignored). This tried and true dichotomy safeguards
the rights of those who truly are strangers to an injunctive decree.
It does not offend due process.
On the other hand, the damaging thing about the precedent in the
2600 case (as far as the general public is concerned) is that Judge
Kaplan found that DeCSS violates the DMCA (declaratory judgment)
and can be banned without impairing first amendment rights. This
is an extremely damaging precedent which could be used by the MPAA as
a basis for a new lawsuit, at least in the Southern District
of New York, against people who don't comply with the demand letters.
Given the clearly parallel case, a judge might look at the precedent
Kaplan set and grant summary judgment for the MPAA. So Kaplan's
decision, in the light of this appeal (which claims that this is
already long-settled in caselaw at the Supreme Court level!),
doesn't directly forbid the public from publishing DeCSS; instead,
it makes it especially easy for the MPAA to win in any subsequent
related trial against some other defendant.
This means that lots of people who might be affected by having
something (like writing free multimedia software, or doing
security research, or publishing exploits for security flaws)
that they like to do ruled illegal have an incentive to intervene
in a precedent-setting case, at least so that they will have an
opportunity to make arguments and have standing to appeal. But
this is dangerous, because it risks making one's self into a target.
Ah, "litigation strategy"...