Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Censorship Encryption Security News Your Rights Online

Bernstein Cryptography Case Dismissed 139

Posted by michael from the fighting-the-good-fight dept.
notime writes "According to a post to export@list.cr.yp.to, djb's crypto case has been dismissed without deciding the constitutionality of the current regulations since the DOJ said the government would not enforce several portions of the regulations. Bernstein said in a statement that he hopes the government keeps its promise - 'But if they change their mind and start harassing Internet-security researchers, I'll be back.'" EFF has a document archive for this on-again, off-again case against U.S. Government regulation of cryptography exports.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bernstein Cryptography Case Dismissed More

Bernstein Cryptography Case Dismissed

Comments Filter:
  • But if they change their mind and start harassing Internet-security researchers, I'll be back.
    Or does that sound like a threat?

    • "But if they change their mind and start harassing Internet-security researchers, I'll be back."

      Or does that sound like a threat?

      No, it's not a threat, it's a fact. Besides, it is just a rephrasing of what the judge said. The judge said "If and when there is a concrete threat of enforcement against Bernstein for a specific activity, Bernstein may return for judicial resolution of that dispute"

    • >Or does that sound like a threat?

      <cue dramatic music>
      <close in for extreme close up>

      Thats not a threat ... its a promise.

      <cut to cowardly goverment lawyers>
  • They'll just pass a new law to get security researchers if existing laws don't work.
    • As Americans, you have the right when a jurer to make a judgement on the validity of the law and not only whether or not someone is technically 'guilty' in terms of that law. It's called the power of jury nullification, IIRC.. See http://www.fija.org/

  • Yes, Karma Whoring (Score:2, Informative)

    by herrvinny ( 698679 )
    Subject: [IP] The Bernstein Cryptography Case Is Dismissed

    From: Dave Farber To: ip@v2.listbox.com Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:41:19 -0400 Delivered-To: dfarber+@ux13.sp.cs.cmu.edu Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:19:29 -0400 From: "Peter D. Junger" Subject: The Bernstein Cryptography Case Is Dismissed To: Dave Farber

    For IP if you consider it suitable.

    This inconclusive ending of the Bernstein case is a consequence of the government's policy in cases where there are first amendment challenges to restrictions
  • The Bearanstan Bears were always favorites of mine and to think they might end up in prison for volating crypto laws is unthinkable.

  • case archive has moved (Score:4, Informative)

    by D. J. Bernstein ( 313967 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @11:21AM (#7230261)
    The case archive is now http://export.cr.yp.to [cr.yp.to]. That archive has about 200 of the case documents; the old EFF archive has only about 100.

  • RTFeA (Score:3, Funny)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @11:23AM (#7230287)
    Tried to read the article, but it appears encrypted using the Lawyer-iese Obfuscation 2.0. I'm afraid if I decode it they'll prosecute me under the DMCA.

  • Unenforced Laws (Score:5, Insightful)

    by murphyslawyer ( 534449 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @11:24AM (#7230294) Homepage
    the DOJ said the government would not enforce several portions of the regulations.

    Is it just me, or does anyone else wish that the government was forced to enforce its own laws, instead of picking and choosing when and where to do so? There are a truly ridiculous number of laws on the books that are rarely enforced, until the prosecutors feel they have a "good" case to drop the hammer on some poor schmuck.

    The public doesn't care about laws that aren't enforced, so most people break the law every day blissfully unaware. It would seem that laws that nobody cares about need to be done away with, instead of criminalizing large portions of the population.

    I just hope the feds never try to housebreak a puppy.

    • Re:Unenforced Laws (Score:3, Interesting)

      by aridhol ( 112307 )
      Ah, yes. Dumb, unenforced laws [dumblaws.com]. Always good for a laugh.
      • missing for NJ:

        State law requires sports teams are prohibited from using an out-of-state name. The New York Giants and New York Jets are examples of how this has not been enforced - they share Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ.

        (Though I do like how the joke gets occasionally made about Buffalo being NY State's only pro football team. I also like how I dont have to get out of my car when it needs gas, and how NJ still has lower gas rates than most states.)
      • I'm moving to Chico... I know I don't want anyone detonating a nuclear device within my city, and not geting forced to pay a $500 fine...

    • Re:Unenforced Laws (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @12:02PM (#7230691)
      > Is it just me, or does anyone else wish that the government was forced to enforce its own laws, instead of picking and choosing when and where to do so? There are a truly ridiculous number of laws on the books that are rarely enforced, until the prosecutors feel they have a "good" case to drop the hammer on some poor schmuck.
      >
      > The public doesn't care about laws that aren't enforced, so most people break the law every day blissfully unaware. It would seem that laws that nobody cares about need to be done away with, instead of criminalizing large portions of the population.

      "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

      - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957.

      Enforcement is not an option. There are so many laws on the books that the system would collapse under the weight of its own bureaucracy if even a tenth of them were enforced.

      Repeal is not an option. Dropping the laws would be nothing short of suicidal in terms of maintaining control over a fundamentally lawless population.

      The only solution that makes sense is the present one. Your freedom comes with responsibility. Use it wisely.

      • I think laws should (perhaps) automatically be subject to a rule that if they are not enforced over x period of time, then they are no longer on the books (they expire). Now, you might think that this would spur a host of ridiculous arrests by the criminals that are our government, and you are likely correct, dependent on the leader's moralistic bent. Those laws against oral sex, sodomy, premarital/extramarital sex, etc, would be enforced in some idiot districts as an attempt to keep them on the books, bu

      • Dropping the laws would be nothing short of suicidal in terms of maintaining control over a fundamentally lawless population.

        Here you suggest that people must be "controlled" - which implies that people are incapable of controlling themselves. Then, in the very next paragraph, you say:

        Your freedom comes with responsibility.

        This implies that people *are* capable of controlling themselves.

        You can't have it both ways: people who exercise self-control do *not* need to be micro-managed by the government.

        I dis

        • I disagree that people are "fundamentally lawless". If they were, then no amount of laws would be sufficient to control the people, because the people would simply ignore the laws

          Hence the largest prison population in the world...
        • If they were, then no amount of laws would be sufficient to control the people, because the people would simply ignore the laws.

          I am confused.

          This differs from our current situation how?

          • This differs from our current situation how?

            The vast majority of people do not ignore the laws. This is why it's silly to say that Americans are "fundamentally lawless".

      • Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of a Scientology-like religion known as "Objectivism". If you don't believe me, then go read this [aynrand.org].
      • Repeal is not an option. Dropping the laws would be nothing short of suicidal in terms of maintaining control over a fundamentally lawless population.

        I don't think so.

        As your Ayn Rand quote suggests, the only ones who would be committing suicide by dropping the unenforced laws would be the ones who use the casting of everyone as a criminal and selective enforcement of laws to maintain power. Everyone else would merely be free of another form of control and discrimination.

        I find it strange that you woul
    • Agreeded. One of the indicators of a corrupt society is a goverment with a myriad of laws and selective enforcement of those laws upon whomever they want to or don't like.

    • Illinois had a seatbelt law passed this way...

      "We won't give tickets for it unless there's an accident", now they pull people over for it.
      While I won't necessarily argue with the law, the TRICK used to pass it was a flat out lie.

      Maybe laws and some rules should have a time limit associated with it. If it hasn't been enforced in $many years, it becomes null and void.

      Some laws at least.

      • In California, seatbelt tickets used to only be given if you were pulled over for some other infraction (did not have to be an accident). Now cops pull people over just because they are not wearing their seatbelts.

        I wear my seltbeat because it might save my life, not because there is a law. I don't think the government should be ours nannies. People say the government wants people to wear seatbelts (or motorcycle helmets) to keep the state's medical costs down. Huh? When did California start paying for soc
    • does anyone else wish that the government was forced to enforce its own laws, instead of picking and choosing

      Yes. Unequal enforcement is unequal justice.

      If a law says that you can't spit on the sidewalk (for instance), and you have twenty witnesses and a videotape of the crime, then it should be enforced, regardless of whether you think the silly law might get declared unconstitutional as an eventual outcome. And for the same evidence, you should prosecute whether it's the mayor's son, or a member of

    • does anyone else wish that the government was forced to enforce its own laws, instead of picking and choosing when and where to do so?

      As usual, I think the proper route is somewhere in the middle. Because laws cannot be written perfectly, given a prosecutor zero choice results in injustice to that one-in-a-million exception case. This is also why judges generally dislike mandatory sentencing requirements, because it favors pre-judgement (by the legislature) over case-by-case judgement. On the other han

  • Thank You to the EFF (Score:4, Interesting)

    by johny_qst ( 623876 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @11:29AM (#7230359) Journal
    I just want to say thanks for the tireless efforts of the EFF in this case. In so many instances they are the only real force to bring intelligent discussion to the judicial system about technology and it's uses. If you don't yet contribute to the EFF coffers, perhaps this should convince you!

  • For many years, Bernstein has had web notes for a crypto course [cr.yp.to] online, but inaccessible, "pending the outcome of his case". I wonder if those will be published now.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @12:11PM (#7230794)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • A more informative article here [com.com] [news.com.com.com.com.com]

  • ---Junger v. Daley---in the federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, it is the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal's decision reversing the District Court's decision in Junger v. Daley that is the leading case holding that computer programs are speech that is protected by the First Amendment. In the Bernstein case, when the government amended the regulations forbidding the publication of computer programs, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals withdrew its earlier opinion in Bernstein's favor and remand

    • The crucial question in most First Amendment cases is whether the government's regulation is based on content. A law usually survives First Amendment scrutiny if the burdens that it imposes on communication don't depend on the content of the communication.

      DMCA targets instructions with certain effects---i.e., instructions with certain content. Unfortunately, EFF failed to emphasize this crucial point in their briefs. The Second Circuit started from the (ludicrous) idea that DMCA wasn't based on content, and

  • This is just a way the government evades constitutional scrutiny. Drop cases they think they'll lose, without conceding the principle. And pursuing those they think they'll win. So their wins count and their losses do not. When the legal climate changes (e.g. a judge is replaced, another terrorist attack occurs), they go ahead and try again on those cases they thought they'd lose before.
  • despite what people think how eccentric djb is this is still a major win for someone who actually stood up for what he believed in rather then people who say what they believe about the the SCO case or the RIAA or MPAA.

    DJB is accepting donations here [cr.yp.to] for his case and for his open source writing.

    Numerous people and businesses have benefited his work and he deserves every contribution he receives.
  • Why is it that in america its absolutely fine for people to own high-power rapid fire chain guns, but not afew lines of code? Lets say for example (ignoring the fact that encryption is free speech anyway) that theres a war and everyone needs to "bear arms", wouldn't encryption count as a weapon to allow people to communicate without the enemy hearing? so whats the problem? Just because its newer technology shouldnt make a difference. If the bill of rights was written when bows and arrows were a common weapo
    • Why is accessing a remote computer without permission an offence? if that machine is connected to a network that you have legal physical access to then isnt it up to them to secure it? Unless your sending 25,000 volts down a line (which should be physical damage), digital breaking and entering is not the same as physical breaking and entering. Every door has a bigger hammer that can knock it down, every bolt has a sharper cutter that can slice it. However a properly secured system should be able to take any
    • Why is accessing a remote computer without permission an offence?

      You say that now, but if I started using a computer to order things online, and paying for them using your bank account # or your credit card number, I'm sure you would feel that I had stolen from you. You would be right - but I could do it all over the computer, which you claim shouldn't be an offense. The idea that people should be allowed to hack companies systems, that theft or destruction of information isn't wrong, and that anythin

    • Why is it that in america its absolutely fine for people to own high-power rapid fire chain guns, but not afew lines of code?

      We can have the "few lines of code". The prohibition is against the export of cryptographic stuff. You see, they reworded ITAR such that publication of source code was considered just as bad as selling actual encryption devices to [China|Russia|N.Korea]. Subsequently, the state department (or is it commerce now?) claimed that under the new definition of "export", all books containin

      • At various points politicians have discussed mandatory key-escrow/backdoors, but also i was thinking of it being illigal to own various DMCA violating code - eg DeCSS. Its entirely feasable that all sorts of circumvention devices could be used in war but would be illigal because of the DMCA
  • Why do they want to ruin freedom of speech/research when they should arrest him for qmail instead!

    Man, have you tried to understand the installation instructions???

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close