According to CalNet Radio, 2 Bay Area and an unspecified number of Los Angeles area hydroponic and "high-tech gardenning" shops were served by DEA with subpoenas to hand over all of their sales records, customer info and personal info on their employees. The orrder is not signed by a judge, so the compliance is voluntary. So far at least one Bay Area shop owner refused to cooperate with DEA since their actions are not legal and violate the constitutional guarrantees of due process.
The records are sought for the DEA's ongoing "Green Merchant" operation aimed at home growers of marijuana. As was reported by the news broadcast, DEA knows full well that they can't make even a small dent in the marijuana home-growing industry, since the "War on Drugs" has driven up the price of marijuana at the same time as the "crack" prices plunged and with the price of pot now being higher than the price of gold, stimulating domestic small crop production. The action was explained as aimed at "showing the Govt's of countries like Bolivia and Columbia that we mean business and cracking down on the drugs at home."
Right! Give them a signal! "Yo! We are making the cocaine market safer for you, guys!"
Remember a few months ago I posted a rather bitter little article that said something like "Go ahead, buy metal halides at the hydroponics shop and expect the cops to be breaking down your doors a few months later when their sales records are confiscated by the police in the name of the 'War on Drugs' farce"? Well, they are close to doing it now.
And lest you think that just because you are a law-abiding citizen and bought your lights to grow tomatoes or to light your reef tank, that will not stop the Government goons from breaking down your doors (remember, "no knock" search warrants are legal now, thanks to the Reagan-staffed Supreme Court), rushing in, may be shooting you because they confuse the TV remote control for a gun (which has already happened at least once), ransacking your house, terrorizing you, confiscating half of your household (which is often done, and then you have to prove that you did not buy it all with drug profits), possibly freezing your bank accounts (they have the power to do that), etc... And when you are looking at your demolished front door, destroyed furniture, trampled tomatoes or smashed up $10,000 reef tank and adrenalin is slowly leaving your system as your hands shake and your heart beat finally slows down to the semblance of "normal," remember why this happened -- you bought a bag of peat moss, or a 5 lb can of iron chelate, or a high-pressure sodium vapour lamp on a sale you could not resist and were dumb enough to put down your address on the bill of sale. Because why should you be worried about it, since you aren't doing anything wrong, right?!
-- DISCLAMMER: I speak for myself only, unless explicitly indicated otherwise. Oleg Kiselev o...@veritas.com VERITAS Software ...!{apple|uunet}!veritas!oleg (408)727-1222x586
From article <1991May24.085802...@Veritas.COM>, by o...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev):
>Stuff about DEA using lighting fixture reciepts to catch the Big Bad Pot >Producers deleted.. > DISCLAMMER: I speak for myself only, unless explicitly indicated otherwise. > Oleg Kiselev o...@veritas.com > VERITAS Software ...!{apple|uunet}!veritas!oleg > (408)727-1222x586
Jeez...I've got a gro-lux over my niceley growing Serrasalmus Natterei I hope the DEA will come in and frisk them for dope...they're not so shy now that I've weened them 50% onto dry food. I guess now, lionfish owners should start feeding their fish baggies of dried spinach...I hear it tends to counteract the effect of intense lighting problems. Its best to leave the baggies partially hidden near the lionfish's favorite territory. Another fun thing to do is to decorate your tank with small glass vials. If you put decorative white sand in them all your visitors will be greatly impressed. Not only is it decorative, but it will increase the surface area of your substrate if you use a UGF. If you want to play a funny joke on early-morning visitors, confess to them that you have hidden things in the sand of your freshwater stingray tank....but dont ruin the joke by telling them that there's a ray in there! :) Ha Ha....you'll have a great laugh for 5-10 years over that one. WARNING: children do not try these techniques at home! unless you're feeling naughty...
Just My $0.02, john "it's right there under the fish that looks like a rock" bowden bow...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu "I speak for no one! Ha."
In article <1991May24.085802...@Veritas.COM> o...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >According to CalNet Radio, 2 Bay Area and an unspecified number of Los Angeles >area hydroponic and "high-tech gardenning" shops were served by DEA with >subpoenas to hand over all of their sales records, customer info and personal >info on their employees. The orrder is not signed by a judge, so the >compliance is voluntary. So far at least one Bay Area shop owner refused >to cooperate with DEA since their actions are not legal and violate the >constitutional guarrantees of due process.
What shocks me is that so many people comply with this sort of thing without even putting up token resistance. That's really the core of the problem.
A lesser intrusion was the long census form last year. I got one. Of course I refused to fill it out. In the end they accepted the short form. But I was surprised to discover that relatively few people who got the long form reacted as I did.
=And lest you think that just because you are a law-abiding citizen and =bought your lights to grow tomatoes or to light your reef tank, that will =not stop the Government goons from breaking down your doors (remember, ="no knock" search warrants are legal now, thanks to the Reagan-staffed =Supreme Court), rushing in, ... = And when you are looking at your demolished =front door, destroyed furniture, trampled tomatoes or smashed up $10,000 reef =tank and adrenalin is slowly leaving your system ...
Don't blame me, I held my nose and voted for Dukakis!
In article <7...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> rbr...@spdcc.COM (Rich Braun) writes: >o...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >=And lest you think that just because you are a law-abiding citizen and >=bought your lights to grow tomatoes or to light your reef tank, that will >=not stop the Government goons from breaking down your doors (remember, >="no knock" search warrants are legal now, thanks to the Reagan-staffed >=Supreme Court), rushing in, ...
>Don't blame me, I held my nose and voted for Dukakis!
I voted for Ron Paul, Libertarian Party candidate for President.
For an information kit on the Libertarian Party, write:
Libertarian Party 1528 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Washington, DC 20003
1-800-682-1776
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -Ken Koellner (k...@sw.stratus.com) Disclaimer: The above writings are the ramblings of one human being and have nothing what-so-ever to do with Stratus Computer Inc.
In article <7...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM>, rbr...@spdcc.COM (Rich Braun) writes:
- -Don't blame me, I held my nose and voted for Dukakis! - -;-( - --rich - So why didn't you vote for someone you actively LIKED, and felt would make a good president, rather than following the Demopublican propaganda that you had to vote for either Bush or Dukakis for your vote to count? There were other people on the ballot even; you didn't even have to write them in. Ron Paul for the Libertarians; Leila Falani (? I probably mucked that up) for the Socialists; and others that I can't remember.
We get no good choice because we LET ourselves have our choices reduced. -- Christopher M. Conway | U*ix and C Guru wom...@nfinit.enet.dec.com | The Second Amendment is ABOUT military wom...@jupiter.nmt.edu | weapons. We have the RIGHT and DUTY to wom...@juliet.ll.mit.edu | overthrow a tyrannical government.
In article <1991May24.131350.22...@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>, njac...@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nick Jacobs - EOS) writes: - -A lesser intrusion was the long census form last year. I got one. Of -course I refused to fill it out. In the end they accepted the short -form. But I was surprised to discover that relatively few people who -got the long form reacted as I did. - -Nick - Good for you. Next time, go a little further. The Constitution requires ONLY the counting of people; the address is legitimate to ensure that you don't get duplicated and for local district formation. NO OTHER QUESTIONS ARE REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Thus, it is *unconstitutional* (violation of right to privacy, 9th amendment) for the congress to require answers to the other questions.
For the 1990 census, my wife and I gave our names and our address. Period. They sent a census worker to "confirm our non-cooperation" with the census:
Census Official: So you will not cooperate with the census? Me: I will not answer questions which are not required by the constitution. CO: Thank you. Goodbye.
Technically, I could be fined $100 for non-cooperation. I have not been contacted any further for any reason. If they ever do anything, I will take them to court on constitutional grounds.
I wish more people would realize that they need to stand up NOW for the rights they want to have in the future. -- Christopher M. Conway | U*ix and C Guru wom...@nfinit.enet.dec.com | The Second Amendment is ABOUT military wom...@jupiter.nmt.edu | weapons. We have the RIGHT and DUTY to wom...@juliet.ll.mit.edu | overthrow a tyrannical government.
In article <1991May24.085802...@Veritas.COM> o...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>And lest you think that just because you are a law-abiding citizen and >bought your lights to grow tomatoes or to light your reef tank, that will >not stop the Government goons from breaking down your doors (remember, >"no knock" search warrants are legal now, thanks to the Reagan-staffed >Supreme Court), rushing in, may be shooting you because they confuse the >TV remote control for a gun (which has already happened at least once), >ransacking your house, terrorizing you, confiscating half of your household >(which is often done, and then you have to prove that you did not buy it >all with drug profits), possibly freezing your bank accounts (they have the >power to do that), etc... And when you are looking at your demolished >front door, destroyed furniture, trampled tomatoes or smashed up $10,000 reef >tank and adrenalin is slowly leaving your system as your hands shake and >your heart beat finally slows down to the semblance of "normal," remember >why this happened -- you bought a bag of peat moss, or a 5 lb can of >iron chelate, or a high-pressure sodium vapour lamp on a sale you could >not resist and were dumb enough to put down your address on the bill of sale. >Because why should you be worried about it, since you aren't doing anything >wrong, right?!
The moral of the story being...always pay cash, and never give 'em your name and address. Privacy is getting to be an endangered species, not just because of the WoD, but also because of direct marketers who would just _love_ to get all the info on you they can...
Personally, I only use checks when I'm sending $$ thru the mail, and I try to keep my credit card purchases to a non-informational minimum. (Knowing that I used by Visa card at the campus bookstore to buy a physics textbook doesn't tell anyone anything they couldn't get from other sources.)
Be aware that wherever you go, whatever you do, you leave an electronic and paper trail...it's up to you how hard that trail is to follow.
=========================================================================== ==== Tom Swiss/fan...@wam.umd.edu * "You put a baby in a crib with an apple and a "What's so funny 'bout peace,* rabbit. If it eats the rabbit and plays with the love, and understanding?" * apple, I'll buy you a new car."-Harvey Diamond My opinions are definitive; reality is frequently inaccurate.
o...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >Remember a few months ago I posted a rather bitter little article that said >something like "Go ahead, buy metal halides at the hydroponics shop and >expect the cops to be breaking down your doors a few months later when their >sales records are confiscated by the police in the name of the 'War on Drugs' >farce"? Well, they are close to doing it now.
This is why you should always buy in cash and never give your name.
...until cash is outlawed, and I believe there is some mention of a movement to do that, too.
>And lest you think that just because you are a law-abiding citizen and >bought your lights to grow tomatoes or to light your reef tank, that will >not stop the Government goons from breaking down your doors (remember, >"no knock" search warrants are legal now, thanks to the Reagan-staffed >Supreme Court), rushing in, may be shooting you because they confuse the >TV remote control for a gun (which has already happened at least once), >ransacking your house, terrorizing you, confiscating half of your household >(which is often done, and then you have to prove that you did not buy it >all with drug profits), possibly freezing your bank accounts (they have the >power to do that), etc... And when you are looking at your demolished >front door, destroyed furniture, trampled tomatoes or smashed up $10,000 reef >tank and adrenalin is slowly leaving your system as your hands shake and >your heart beat finally slows down to the semblance of "normal," remember >why this happened -- you bought a bag of peat moss, or a 5 lb can of >iron chelate, or a high-pressure sodium vapour lamp on a sale you could >not resist and were dumb enough to put down your address on the bill of sale. >Because why should you be worried about it, since you aren't doing anything >wrong, right?!
And you forgot that the halide lamp was confiscated as "evidence" :-)
"Where's my camcorder ??" -- /************************************************************************** *\ / Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- p...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu | Guns don't aim guns at \ \ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks | people; CRIMINALS do!! / \************************************************************************** */
o...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >According to CalNet Radio, 2 Bay Area and an unspecified number of Los Angeles >area hydroponic and "high-tech gardenning" shops were served by DEA with >subpoenas to hand over all of their sales records, customer info and personal >info on their employees. The orrder is not signed by a judge, so the >compliance is voluntary. So far at least one Bay Area shop owner refused >to cooperate with DEA since their actions are not legal and violate the >constitutional guarrantees of due process.
Gee, the last time it happened about 1.75 years ago, they just stormed the Indoor Gardening shop here in People's Berkeley and seized everything that even remotely resembled a record, including the firm's computer.
The shop now sports a different name, but they appear to be in a similar business. I wonder if they keep a client list anymore...
>Right! Give them a signal! "Yo! We are making the cocaine market safer >for you, guys!"
Is it any coincidence that crack cocaine appeared right after they started driving up the price of pot?
>Because why should you be worried about it, since you aren't doing anything >wrong, right?!
Right. The DEA is now a gov't profit center..or rather is run like a business and is behaving just like any other business that can make a lot of money if they don't care what happens to their customers. -- real address: ba...@catnip.berkeley.ca.us last choice: lll-winken!catnip.berkeley.ca.us!bandy
In article <7...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM>, rbr...@spdcc.COM (Rich Braun) writes... >o...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >=And lest you think that just because you are a law-abiding citizen and >=bought your lights to grow tomatoes or to light your reef tank, that will >=not stop the Government goons from breaking down your doors (remember, >="no knock" search warrants are legal now, thanks to the Reagan-staffed >=Supreme Court), rushing in, ... >= And when you are looking at your demolished >=front door, destroyed furniture, trampled tomatoes or smashed up $10,000 reef >=tank and adrenalin is slowly leaving your system ... >Don't blame me, I held my nose and voted for Dukakis!
As though he weren't another drug thug.
Vote LP. We'll make you free. The Libertarian Party
Yup, the DEA doesn't want to WIN the drug war, it wants to MILK the drug dealers (and anyone one else they can get their hands on). If the DEA actually eliminated the drug trade they would wipe out one of their major sources of revenue. We could eliminate a lot of drug violence and make possible a drastic reduction in the DEA budget and its interference in private lives by just legalizing and taxing all drugs (We could put a 10,000 % tax on PCP, of course).
-- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 EMAIL: feus...@netcom.com or feus...@cvax.ipfw.indiana.edu
In article <3...@shodha.enet.dec.com>, wom...@infinite.abo.dec.com (Christopher M. Conway) writes...
>In article <7...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM>, rbr...@spdcc.COM (Rich Braun) writes: >Ron Paul for the Libertarians; Leila Falani (? I probably mucked that up) >for the Socialists; and others that I can't remember.
Lenora Fulani was on the ticket for the New Alliance party (I started to type Gnu Dalliance, the way when I'm intentionally distorting them).
> Be aware that wherever you go, whatever you do, you leave an electronic >and paper trail...it's up to you how hard that trail is to follow.
Okay...maybe someone on here could suggest some good information, bookwise, on how to reduce and eliminate the paper and electronic trails...becoming -- --------------- | _> ### | | | | ---------------
t...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Zion Bauknight) writes:
>fan...@wam.umd.edu (Thomas Mark Swiss) writes: >> Be aware that wherever you go, whatever you do, you leave an electronic >>and paper trail...it's up to you how hard that trail is to follow. > Okay...maybe someone on here could suggest some good information, bookwise, >on how to reduce and eliminate the paper and electronic trails...becoming
Besides "Get off this net..." :-) -- --------------- | _> ### | | | | ---------------
>In article <1991May24.131350.22...@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>, njac...@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nick Jacobs - EOS) writes: >- >-A lesser intrusion was the long census form last year. I got one. Of >-course I refused to fill it out. In the end they accepted the short >-form. But I was surprised to discover that relatively few people who >-got the long form reacted as I did.
Actually, there are people who prefer to receive the long form. Genealogists for one -- they view census information as valuable for future historians (Congress typically makes a census available to the public about 75 years after it is taken) and want to ensure that future data is as good as the data we have from the past. A couple of the major genealogical periodicals had letters from subscribers lamenting they couldn't request a long form...
Personally, I view this as consistent with the general notion of privacy expressed on this list, namely people should have relatively strong control over the information about themselves that is collected (or distributed). The genealogists wish to provide more information -- that's their right.
In article <1991May24.085802...@Veritas.COM>, o...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
|> And lest you think that just because you are a law-abiding citizen and |> bought your lights to grow tomatoes or to light your reef tank, that will |> not stop the Government goons from breaking down your doors (remember, |> "no knock" search warrants are legal now, thanks to the Reagan-staffed |> Supreme Court), rushing in, may be shooting you because they confuse the |> TV remote control for a gun (which has already happened at least once), |> ransacking your house, terrorizing you, confiscating half of your household |> (which is often done, and then you have to prove that you did not buy it |> all with drug profits), possibly freezing your bank accounts (they have the |> power to do that), etc... And when you are looking at your demolished |> front door, destroyed furniture, trampled tomatoes or smashed up $10,000 reef |> tank and adrenalin is slowly leaving your system as your hands shake and |> your heart beat finally slows down to the semblance of "normal," remember |> why this happened -- you bought a bag of peat moss, or a 5 lb can of |> iron chelate, or a high-pressure sodium vapour lamp on a sale you could |> not resist and were dumb enough to put down your address on the bill of sale. |> Because why should you be worried about it, since you aren't doing anything |> wrong, right?!
Is there any legal recourse available to someone who has had his property destroyed/confiscated, family terrorized, life disrupted, etc. wrongfully by overzealous drug-warriors? Can he make a bundle by sueing the hell out of the government? Or are the drug warriors above reproach? Any legal experts care to comment?
In article <1991May27.032303.26...@athena.mit.edu> ebho...@athena.mit.edu (Ted Hontz) writes: >Is there any legal recourse available to someone who has had his property destroyed/confiscated, family terrorized, life disrupted, etc. wrongfully by overzealous drug-warriors? Can he make a bundle by sueing the hell out of the government? Or are the drug warriors above reproach? >Any legal experts care to comment?
A legal expert will tell you that the law provides a remedy to anyone who is wronged.
But that's in theory. In practice, the legal system is heavily biased in favor of the side which has more $$$. If *you* take on the U.S. Government, guess which side has more resources. Remember the huge staff which was assembled, and the millions of dollars that were spent, in the prosecution of Col. North. (Just an e.g. of the way the govt can outmatch individuals, I take no position on whether or not it was justified in that case).
The post you responded to cited the case of the man whom the police shot dead while he was watching TV, after they broke into his home unannounced. Their excuse was that he was holding a TV remote control which they mistook for a gun. It's difficult to imagine what legal decision could adequately compensate the dead man, his widow, or his children. I believe the police involved were not even disciplined in any way.
Just another little tidbit that probably didn't make it into the national press: about a couple of years ago, it was decided that the ammunition used by the Baltimore police should be dum-dum bullets (expanding bullets). Of course, these are outlawed in warfare under the Geneva Conventions, to which the US is a signatory, because they tend to leave survivors permanently disabled.
In article <1991May25.134655.22...@netcom.COM> feus...@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes: >.... We could eliminate a lot of drug >violence and make possible a drastic reduction in the DEA budget and >its interference in private lives by just legalizing and taxing all >drugs (We could put a 10,000 % tax on PCP, of course).
Sorry, taxing this much won't solve the problem...just restate it. If you tax it to this point, you inadvertently create a market for smuggled drugs and stuf that happens to avoid gov't inspection and taxation. This once again leads to grow-lights in basements for people own personal crop, and their own private chem labs, etc. It'd be just like we have now, only the gov't would be making $$$ off it. ---Actually, I take even that back. I'll bet they wouldn't make hardly anything at all, 'cause they'd end up spending most of it on enforcement of the tax laws and busting smugglers, etc.
In article <1991Jun4.164037.15...@linus.mitre.org> so...@cyclone.mitre.org (S. J. Okay) writes:
>In article <1991May25.134655.22...@netcom.COM> feus...@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes: >>.... We could eliminate a lot of drug >>violence and make possible a drastic reduction in the DEA budget and >>its interference in private lives by just legalizing and taxing all >>drugs (We could put a 10,000 % tax on PCP, of course).
>Sorry, taxing this much won't solve the problem...just restate it. >If you tax it to this point, you inadvertently create a market for >smuggled drugs and stuf that happens to avoid gov't inspection and >taxation. This once again leads to grow-lights in basements for >people own personal crop, and their own private chem labs, etc. >It'd be just like we have now, only the gov't would be making $$$ >off it. ---Actually, I take even that back. I'll bet they wouldn't make >hardly anything at all, 'cause they'd end up spending most of it on >enforcement of the tax laws and busting smugglers, etc.
It seems to me, perhaps incorrectly, that the situation of legalising and taxing a substance is one that has already occured wrt booze. Is the cost of enforcing the various booze taxes higher than the revenues from the taxes? I suspect that the market for untaxed booze in a 'legal but taxed' situation is smaller than the market in a 'illegal' situation. Anyone have figures on this?
>In article <1991Jun4.164037.15...@linus.mitre.org> so...@cyclone.mitre.org (S. J. Okay) writes: >>In article <1991May25.134655.22...@netcom.COM> feus...@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes: >>>.... We could eliminate a lot of drug >>>violence and make possible a drastic reduction in the DEA budget and >>>its interference in private lives by just legalizing and taxing all >>>drugs (We could put a 10,000 % tax on PCP, of course). >>Sorry, taxing this much won't solve the problem...just restate it. >>If you tax it to this point, you inadvertently create a market for >>smuggled drugs and stuf that happens to avoid gov't inspection and >>taxation. This once again leads to grow-lights in basements for >>people own personal crop, and their own private chem labs, etc. >>It'd be just like we have now, only the gov't would be making $$$ >>off it. ---Actually, I take even that back. I'll bet they wouldn't make >>hardly anything at all, 'cause they'd end up spending most of it on >>enforcement of the tax laws and busting smugglers, etc. > It seems to me, perhaps incorrectly, that the situation of legalising >and taxing a substance is one that has already occured wrt booze. Is the >cost of enforcing the various booze taxes higher than the revenues from the >taxes? I suspect that the market for untaxed booze in a "legal but taxed" >situation is smaller than the market in a "illegal" situation. Anyone >have figures on this?
You're right. The taxes on ethanol should be removed, too. The last time I checked, though, the tax was nowhere near 10k%
At a time when the Government seems bent on keeping the public from having access to electronic privacy technology, there is now a freeware MSDOS software application that protects E-mail and files via public key cryptography. Philip Zimmermann's program, PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), provides privacy and authentication without the hassles of managing keys associated with conventional cryptographic software. No secure channels are needed for users to exchange keys. PGP combines the convenience of RSA public key cryptography with the speed of conventional cryptography, fast message digests for signatures, data compression, and sophisticated key management. And PGP performs the RSA functions relatively fast. PGP is RSA public key cryptography for the masses.
PGP version 1.0 is now available through electronic distribution for MSDOS in the compressed archive file PGP10.ZIP, containing the executable binary and user documentation. This release file can be found on BIX, Compuserve, FidoNet, in comp.binaries.ibm.pc and alt.sources on Internet, the WELL, PeaceNet, EcoNet, EXEC-PC, and many other BBS systems. A separate file, PGP10SRC.ZIP, contains all the C source code and can be found on most of these same networks.
"Phil Zimmermann has made a real contribution to communications privacy. `Pretty Good Privacy' is a damn good idea." --Marc Rotenberg, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Washington DC
In article <1991Jun10.135354.26...@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>, njac...@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nick Jacobs - EOS) writes: |> In article <25...@well.sf.ca.us> ke...@well.sf.ca.us (Kelly Goen) writes: |> |> [ ... ] |> >key management. And PGP performs the RSA functions relatively fast. |> >PGP is RSA public key cryptography for the masses. |> > |> >PGP version 1.0 is now available through electronic distribution for |> >MSDOS in the compressed archive file PGP10.ZIP, containing the |> |> A patent was issued for the RSA algorithm. Does the author of |> PGP hold a license to use it? |> |> Nick Jacobs
Actually, the patent was issued for a particular RSA device which included the algorithm. The lawyers will decide if the algorithm was covered. (Does anyone have the patent # handy?)
Does reading a paper on the RSA constitute use? Does thinking about it constitute use? Does writing a paper on the subject (appropriately referenced) constitute use? Does translating the algorithm into a programming language constitute use? Does compiling that algorithm constitute use? Does running the implementation thus produced in order to better understand the paper constitute use? Does giving away the implementation to other university researchers constitute use? Does giving away the implementation to the general public constitute use? Does selling the implementation constitute use?
I would argue that everyone would agree on the answers to the first and last of these questions. I am not so sure you will get even two people to agree on the rest.
|
