3 ms·

Thanks for noticing. I do have a unique perspective indeed, and that is exactly the activity we engage in. It was never criminal. Reverse engineering for intero

Thanks for noticing. I do have a unique perspective indeed, and that is exactly the activity we engage in. It was never criminal. Reverse engineering for interoperability has always been permitted by law.

woodruffw 4y ago
> Reverse engineering for interoperability has always been permitted by law. It's not that straightforward (even if I wish it was). First, it requires a judge and jury who understand "interoperability" to include "connecting to a server you don't own and sending it payloads that it isn't expecting." Second, it requires a lenient interpretation of EULAs under the DMCA: the DMCA promotes otherwise legal reverse engineering activities into illegal activities by allowing companies to establish "acceptable use," which can include prohibiting reverse engineering activities that circumvent restrictions on copyrighted or other controlled material. A bank may plausibly (in the eyes of attorneys) claim that third-party uses of its APIs compromise the bank's ability to comply with federal regulations, since no law requires that compliance and operation be integral operations.
bfdm 4y ago
What? That is just clearly untrue, even though I agree it ought to be the law. DMCA 1201 made no exemptions to circumvention of technical protection measures (for research, interoperability, fair use etc). Assuming any kind of security measure was employed here the interpretations of violating that have been quite broad. ianal etc.
- sjtgraham 4y ago
  Reverse engineering does not necessarily imply circumvention of technical countermeasures, e.g. removal of DRM. Reverse engineering would also be a copyright infringement issue, which does have a carve out for reverse engineering.