Re: Surrogate factoring, update

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 07/15/04 

Date: 15 Jul 2004 06:42:43 -0700

Tom St Denis <tom@securescience.net> wrote in message news:<8GkJc.948383$Ar.24659@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> Lance Lamboy wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:04:40 +0000, Tom St Denis wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >>
> >>> An expert need not testify about a particular idea, but once they make
> >>> a public statement, they can be held liable for their position, if
> >>> others suffer a tort that can be related to their expert statements.
> >>>
> >>> It's just the law.
> >>
> >> Really? Which specific law? In which jurisdiction?
> >>
> >>> Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, nor is it a protection.
> >>
> >> Ignorance of the law is not something somoene who protests legal
> >> injustice should have either. Hmm tit for tat I guess.
> >>
> >>> Here's an example. Let's say that it is your expert opinion that a
> >>> building is safe, though some residents of that building proclaim that
> >>> they are worried that it is unsafe.
> >>
> >> You only can authoratively say a building is safe if you sign off on it.
> >> You also have to enter into a binding agreement to analyze it.
> >
> > This is a serious issue. I think James is saying that if a Math PhD
> > endorsed APF and some third party suffers then that third party can sue
> > the Math PhD. It is kind of like the building inspector who claims a
> > building is safe when in fact it is just about to collapse.
>
> You can claim anything you want. Only when you agree to take the
> responsibility do you have to take on any liabilities.

Nope. That's not true for people *legally* considered to be experts.

The law acknowledges that special weight is given to the claims of
those who are considered to be expert in an area.

By giving an *expert* opinion, which can be as simple as commenting in
your field of known expertise, you can be held responsible for your
words.

> A Math PhD could openly say "I hate RSA" and not be liable to the company
> for any "defamation". If I hired a math PhD to design a system and
> he/she/it openly designs something that the industry wouldn't endorse [say
> 200-bit RSA with 40-bit DES] then I could sue you.

You probably need to consult a legal expert as in my opinion your
knowledge of the law is clearly muddled.

For instance, if a math Ph.D said that RSA were insecure, not
expressing something as silly as liking or disliking it, then yes,
they could be sued.

They might also face criminal prosecution unless they could prove
their statement to be true.

Just like if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater just for kicks,
like in the classic example.

Some of you seem to think that you have complete freedom to say what
you want on Usenet because you haven't seen anyone get burned.

But you haven't seen anyone get burned, yet.

>
> AFAIK James hasn't hired anyone here to "analyze" his design. So all he's
> getting is what "free help" amounts to.

Newsgroups are public areas of discussion.

Statements made here are public statements and if made by an expert in
a particular field can be taken to be expert testimony.

An expert can be held to their claims.

It's the weight of responsibility for having expert status.

Mathematicians are by definition math experts.
 
> > Since I am not a Math PhD, I am free to praise or criticize APF. No one
> > will pay attention either way. But if you are a Math PhD, you better not
> > endorse APF or you could be held responsible.
>
> In a perfect world you'd be responsible for what you say but that's just not
> the case. Free speech is kinda a "sticky" issue with people.
>
> Tom

It depends on what area you are in and whether or not there's serious
money involved.

Sure, for most of you, the reality that you can, if you can be
considered an expert, be held to your statements might seem strange
because you haven't had to worry about being sued, while experts in
other fields might be shocked at your naivette.

I think some of you have long believed that Usenet is a free zone
where what you say doesn't matter. Well, you're kind of right, as
long as what you say does NOT matter.

As long as Usenet is useless, then probably you are safe. But if it
becomes involved where there's serious money then you can be damn sure
that the lawsuits will start, and then you'll understand that free
speech is not always free.

James Harris