According to an article on BBC News, a recent ruling in the EU may have set a precedent that may make laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States increasingly harder to pass.
A Dutch judge has ruled that details of how to copy Oyster cards used on London’s transport network can be published.
The ruling overturns an injunction to suppress the information won by NXP - makers of the travel smartcards used in London and many other cities.
The injunction was sought in June 2008 after Dutch researchers demonstrated how to copy cards and travel free on the London Underground.
Cracked cards
The security weaknesses in the Oyster card were discovered by Prof Bart Jacobs and colleagues from Radboud University, Nijmegen in March 2008. The weaknesses centre around the chip, called the Mifare Classic, that sits at the heart of the contactless card system.
As well as being used on 17 million Oyster cards, the Mifare chip is also used in Hong Kong’s travel network, and is the basis of the Dutch Rijkspas smartcard. Many organisations, including governments, use Mifare technology as a secure entry system for buildings. Given the many millions of cards in use Prof Jacobs held off publishing details about how the information on the chips can be copied and used. It told the Dutch government and NXP about its work to give them time to harden systems against the attack.
Despite this, NXP sought an injunction to ensure the details of the attack would never be aired. The case went to court in Holland and now the court in Arnhem has overturned the injunction citing local freedom of expression laws.
In its ruling, the court said: “Damage to NXP is not the result of the publication of the article but of the production and sale of a chip that appears to have shortcomings.”
In a statement, Radboud University hailed the ruling and said: “…in a democratic society it is of great importance that the results of scientific research can be published”.
I think that this is a very prescient ruling by this judge, and demonstrates that simply because the corporations of the world want to prevent free speech, doesn’t mean it can.
Here is my favorite statement:
In its ruling, the court said: “Damage to NXP is not the result of the publication of the article but of the production and sale of a chip that appears to have shortcomings.”
Amen, brother! This is why scientific discussion of encryption techniques is of the utmost importance, and definitely should not be allowed to be suppressed.
This is not the model for the United States. however.
In the US, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is the driving force behind copyright enforcement, and protection of IPO. In so far as encrypting technologies is concerned,
Section 1201 [of the DMCA] is being used by a number of copyright owners to stifle free speech and legitimate scientific research. The lawsuit against 2600 magazine, threats against Princeton Professor Edward Felten’s team of researchers, and prosecution of the Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov have imposed a chill on a variety of legitimate activities.
For example, online service providers and bulletin board operators have begun to censor discussions of copy-protection systems, programmers have removed computer security programs from their websites, and students, scientists and security experts have stopped publishing details of their research on existing security protocols. Foreign scientists are also increasingly uneasy about traveling to the United States out of fear of possible DMCA liability, and certain technical conferences have begun to relocate overseas.
These developments will ultimately result in weakened security for all computer users (including, ironically, for copyright owners counting on technical measures to protect their works), as security researchers shy away from research that might run afoul of section 1201.
Source: http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030102_dmca_unintended_consequences.html
Computer Scientists can no longer research software to ensure it provides adequate protection without fear of violating the DMCA, and risk prosecution and jail time in the US.
In the US, we have seen legitimate research stifled, and progress thwarted all to prevent the mere DISCUSSION of an encryption algorithm, and it’s potential weaknesses. There is nothing beneficial for us, the citizens of the United States, in the suppression of free speech. We should never have allowed this law to pass in the first place.
But, I believe the Dutch judge’s ruling demonstrates exactly WHY discussion of these technologies is so important. We have to assume that not only legitimate researchers are seeking to crack the various technologies used to protect our IP today. Technologies such as Blue-Ray and HD-DVD, for example, use new encryption schemes to help prevent piracy. But both technologies have already been cracked, their keys release on the ‘net. Can this encourage piracy? Sure, since it provides hackers the vital piece of information needed to crack the encryption scheme. But, it also demonstrates the weakness for all to see, and helps ensure that future protection doesn’t fall prey to the same problems. It actually helps scientific research world-wide.
It’s all about history. Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.

If you are the RIAA or the MPAA, representing the movie studios and music companies, how do you protect your digital ass(ets)?