At Sat, 18 Mar 2000 19:56:17 -0800, Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> At 04:01 PM 3/17/00 -0800, Ed Gerck wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> Not trespass. Regardless of law, anything I purchase is mine to do
>as I
>> see fit, including resale, rental or reverse engineering. Period.
>>
>> Regardless of law, anything I can detect from my property is mine
>to listen
>> to, decrypt and enjoy.
>
>I agree with you that different models may be used in different situations.
>In this regard, however, the user is always free NOT to use it if the
>software
>producer decides to declare reverse engineering out of bounds. The
>producer
>is licensing the program, not the technology behind it.
BS. If I purchase or rent something I can make fair use of the contents
or 'look under the hood' all I want.
>This approach may also have a better chance to provide a middle ground
>for different situations since it does not intrude so much into the
>developer's right to privacy and intellectual property protection --
>if so desired/necessary.
I don't acknowledge that reverse engineering violates any right to privacy.
KS
IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you are not using HushMail, this message could have been read
easily by the many people who have access to your open personal email messages.
Get your FREE, totally secure email address at http://www.hushmail.com.
