[Fwd: DeCSS and imminent harm ...]

From: Sandy Harris <sandy _-at-_ storm.ca>
To: canada-dmca-opponents (at) flora.org
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 19:29:16 -0400

An old message of mine, from another forum, forwarded here in case anyone can use
the ammunition.

Sandy Harris wrote:
> 
> Kevin Blanchard wrote:
> >
> > In fact I think spreading the DeCSS is a GREAT idea. If they are trying to
> > stop people from posting it, I think an email circulation is also in order.
> >
> > I do not believe it should be down as a rebellion but history has shown the
> > technology advances happen more often because of hackers, crackers,etc.  As it
> > pertains to encryption, if they develop a way to encrypt data, and then a way
> > is found to crack it, then a newer, better way is developed and so goes the
> > evolution of technology.
> 
> However, in this case they were seriously incompetent so nothing new was
> learned.
> 
> First, they claim their encryption is intended to stop copying. Either they
> are lying (That would be my guess) or they've completely misunderstood.
> Their encryption has **absolutely zero** effect on copying. Anyone with
> the right hardware can make a bit-for-bit copy of an encrypted disk. It
> will play on every device the original did.
> 
> Second, they used 40-bit encryption, presumably to comply with US
> export laws. This is obscenely weak. Assume you can try a million
> keys a second. 10^6 ~= 2^20 so you need 2^20 seconds. 3600 seconds
> in an hour, somewhat < 2^12 so total time is somewhat > 256 hours.
> A week or a month on a single machine, depending how fast it is.
> 
> Then they muffed the design so there are faster attacks; they don't
> even have 40 bits of actual strength. In one brief to the court,
> Dave Wagner from Berkeley said breaking this system was about the
> right level of difficulty for him to assign it as undergraduate
> homework next term.

Wagner's brief in the first round of the California DeCSS case, archived
on eff.org.
 
> Lastly, one of their customers muffed something else and the disks
> have one unencrypted key, which makes it easier to attack the others.
> 
> > Instead of wasting money going on a wild goose chase to try to stop
> > these "internet violators" which will never happen,
> 
> The scary part is that to some extent is is happenning and, given some
> of the awful laws in place like DMCA, may continue to. These guys are
> actually getting away with molesting Norwegian teenagers and with suing
> webmasters over links.

They had Norwegian police arrest 16-year-old Jon Johannsen who originally
posted the DeCSS code.
 
> > they should
> > take the money and put it towards RnD of a better way to encrypt that data,
> > which would be the best way to solve their problem of people decrypting
> > material they do not want decrypted.
> 
> I'm not certain their stated goal -- protection against unauthorized copying --
> is even possible. Certainly nothing they've done to date is even slightly
> relevant to it.
> 
> > > It is not about copyright law.   It is about power.
> 
> As for their actual goals -- controlling the market in viciously unethical
> ways -- I devoutly hope they don't implement better encryption for that.
--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.flora.org/dmca/