Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by balls2you 4141 days ago
Yes, but Singapore doesn't prosecute you for reverse engineering. That's why he is there. Your point of irony is directed towards other acts that are not relevant to Bunnie's situation.
2 comments

According to wikipedia the US is fairly permissive regarding reverse engineering hardware [1]: In the United States even if an artifact or process is protected by trade secrets, reverse-engineering the artifact or process is often lawful as long as it has been legitimately obtained.

Bunnies protest is about what happened to Aaron which was a case about data theft, copyright and the draconian way the us government intended to prosecute and punish.

Singapore has similar copyright and antipiracy laws, and an even more authoritarian and unfair legal process. [2] Human rights activists, foreign scholars and opposition party members have pointed out that members of the opposition parties often suffer "misfortunes" of various kinds, including arrest, sued into bankruptcy especially in defamatory lawsuits, and imprisonment, with the convictions and bankruptcy in turn barring the opposition candidates from standing in elections.

For the record, I love Bunnie, Singapore and the USA

[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#United_Sta...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Singapore#Criticis...

> Yes, but Singapore doesn't prosecute you for reverse engineering. That's why he is there

Is your statement above verified to be true? Has Bunny actually said that?

I'm not a lawyer, but this article seems to suggest that Singapore's legal system is quite similar to the US and does permit prosecution for reverse engineering.

" 7 In broad terms Creative’s claim is grounded on three central allegations of facts, viz: (a) that Aztech reverse engineered (through disassembly) version 1 of the Sound Blaster firmware; (b) that Aztech copied portions of version 2 of the Sound Blaster firmware, particularly in four undocumented commands, E2, F0, F4 and F8; and (c) by loading TEST.SBC into the PC’s RAM and disassembling it, by means of running the DEBUG program, Aztech infringed Creative’s copyright in TEST.SBC. " http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/commercia...