[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is this legal? [RFP: djohn -- Distributed password cracker]



On 1/4/07, Masayuki Hatta <mhatta@grad.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp> wrote:
Hi,

>>>>> In <[🔎] 1007a32a0701032156m548e4bd1m78b2633fcc3704c6@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>	"Andrew Donnellan" <ajdlinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> Password cracking in itself has always been legal AFAIK.

> Using password crackers to crack other peoples systems without
> permission (ie. illegally obtaining access) is definitely illegal.

> There are legitimate uses for tools like djohn, eg. for security
> testing, for data recovery, etc.

A Japanese software developer was arrested recently because he
developed a P2P file-sharing implementation called Winny.  Winny can
be used legally, but some (well, I should say many) people used Winny
as a mean of copyright violation (file sharing of proprietary movies,
music, and so on).  And somehow the police arrested those violators as
well as the developer.

See:

https://www.cpsr.org/act/global/japan/enews/Winny2006

So, at least in Japan, I think it can be dangerous to develop or
distribute legal tools with some foreseen illegal use.  I know it's
almost insane(we Debian already distribute such software), and the
trial is not yet concluded, but that's the situation nowadays.

As usual, IANAL, btw.

AFAIK, in many jurisdictions, in regards to copyright circumvention it
is often determined on the basis of 'is there any commercially viable
legal use?' rather than 'is there any legal use?'. Did anyone
*actually* use the program for legal purposes?

Of course, as you mention the trial is not done yet, and if he's let
off that should set a good precedent.

--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)    ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com         http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
ajdlinux@jabber.org.au             hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
           http://linux.org.au    http://debian.org
       Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484



Reply to: