[crest]

Any encryption/signature that can be broken in software on affordable hardware is just that: BROKEN.

What is your theory of harm? Who is harmed and how? Why should the law protect them by restricting the freedom of others?

AMD *sold* these CPUs to customers potentially running this tool on their hardware. That makes you think AMD should be entitled to restrict what the public is allowed to know about their products or does with them post sale?

Also if AMD is still in control shouldn't they be liable too? Should users get to sue AMD if an AMD CPU got compromised by malware e.g. the next side channel attack?

I might start to feel some sympathy for AMD and Intel if they voluntary paid all their customers for the effective post-sale performance downgrades inflicted on customers by mitigations required to make their CPUs fit for purpose.

[ls612]

DMCA 1201 says ANY decryption without permission from a copyright holder (with some exceptions that are in practice pretty minor) is a federal crime. Yet one more on the pile of "three felonies a day" to hold over the masses to keep them in line.

[fulafel]

If this was the case, reading your comment (when delivered over TLS in a relevant jurisdiction) would be one such crime.

[ls612]

It was decrypted on my authority as the author by virtue of whatever license the Hacker News TOS requires in order to store and transmit my posts to the public.