Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A security mechanism which has been defeated by a piece of software is > not "imperfect". If I post my root password to this list, it is not > an "imperfect but still effective" security mechanism; it is useless > and defeated.
But, as you note below, that's not the case. > (It seems to me that the real goal of this law is so that once a > security mechanism is defeated, and is no longer effective, the real > "security mechanism" becomes the law itself: by pretending that the > obsolete mechanism is still "effective", the deterrent becomes the > threat of prosecution, instead of actual security.) Precisely. IIRC, "effective security mechanism" was defined in terms of controlling access "in the normal course of operation" -- which the copyright holder is going to have a great deal of flexibility to define. If you want to be charitable, you might say that "effective" here is being used in the sense of "effectively, it's a security mechanism". But whether you want to be charitable or not, it's clearly not being used in a way that requires the mechanism to be robust. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]