Ed Gerck wrote:
> I guess that there is no doubt that reverse engineering is illegal when the
> software copyright owner so denies.
I don't guess so. for example, norway has a law that allows
reverse-engineering and explicitly says that this right can not be taken
away by a contract, license, whatever. (relevant section of norwegian
law is somewhere on my decss webpages - www.lemuria.org/DeCSS/)
> Now, can we say that it is illegal for
> a parent to shut off the TV when certain shows are aired? Or, to allow the
> V-chip to block certain shows? Or, finally, to allow software to do it? Is using
> the V-chip a defamation? No -- it is done inside one's own house. Why is
> this different from the same parent using Cyberpatrol for the same objective
> but in a computer -- and, look, the parent wants it.
as someone said, the defamation might occur between cyberpatrol and the
parent, because when the site gets blocked, the parent thinks it's a
p0rn site. now imagine you were neighbors to the family mentioned whose
site gets blocked. what would you think of them? "hey, our neighbors
have a porn homepage. I wonder what they have there, pictures of their
children being abused, maybe?" - now is that defamation or not?
> The guys that reverse engineered CyberPatrol seemed to believe that
> "security" can justify trespassing. I think we need to ponder about
> the fallacy of it, as if the end could justify the means.
I don't think they had any of these deep thoughts. they were just pissed
that the software wouldn't tell them what it did. I occasionally rip
software apart for very similiar reasons, like finding out what it does,
or how it does it. if curiosity is a crime, we should all go back and
live in caves.
