Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!leemc Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc From: leemc@csri.toronto.edu (Matthew Lee) Subject: Re: PKZIP version 1.10 and data encryption Message-ID: <1990Mar29.175705.1573@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto References: <1990Mar28.035417.6496@eng.umd.edu> <2170@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <3930@plains.UUCP> <^KG#L#_@rpi.edu> Date: 29 Mar 90 22:57:05 GMT Lines: 25 In article <^KG#L#_@rpi.edu> sigma@pawl.rpi.edu (Kevin J Martin) writes: > >A few e-mail comments (accompanied by whole-hearted requests, I might add) >have made me uneasy about this situation, absurd as that might seem. Could >we discuss the legalities? Considering how recent Secret Service busts seem >to hold BBS operators entirely responsible for anything their users may do, >I wonder if, along the same lines, I could be responsible for not accounting >for the possibility of, say, the "Russkies" tapping an Ethernet wire in rural >Ohio and intercepting my mail?! It's all so ludicrous anyway, so why not? Yes, if I were you I'd secure the movie rights as soon as possible :-) Seriously speaking, I have yet to see a posting of the "letter of the law" regarding this situation. While I'm sure we are *all* unanimous in our commdemnation of what appears to be an idiotic law, IMHO we should establish without question that PKZIP 1.10 is indeed affected by this restriction, and then ascertain what constitutes a violation of said law. Then we can decide whether to write our local congressman/MP/whatever or maybe that a lot of noise is being made over nothing. By the way Kevin, thanks for so promptly sending me the new PKZIP, I'll chip in a few bucks for your legal defense fund :-) Matthew Lee leemc@csri.toronto.edu