The California Supreme Court ruled today that the protection of trade secrets is more important than freedom of speech. The score is now 1 to 0, with "monetary greed" leading "free society".

In any case, as is reported widely, the case was related to the whole DeCSS issue, which hasn't been resolved yet because the Supreme Court still questions the assumption that DeCSS contained "trade secrets". However, I also found the following quote in this article:

"In this case, the content of the trade secrets neither involves a matter of public concern nor implicates the core purpose of the First Amendment," Justice Janice Rogers Brown wrote for the court. "Disclosure of this highly technical information adds nothing to the public debate over the use of encryption software or the DVD industry's efforts to limit unauthorized copying of movies on DVDs."

Obviously, Janice doesn't get it. Let's say someone invented a device that can pick a certain type of lock that's used in many homes. If that device were outlawed and not known to the general public, those few who know about the device will have free access to any house that uses that type of common lock, and the victims wouldn't know what hit them. If, on the other hand, the device was sold for $4.99 at WalMart (or at least its presence widely publicized), there's a good chance that people using the vulnerable type of lock would change to a more secure lock as soon as possible. It would also motivate lock makers to create or invent more secure systems, which, needless to say, benefits consumers at large. The same applies for encryption and cracks. People should know about vulnerabilities in encryption schemes they come in contact to, in order to better protect them selves. Wide availability of cracks may also be the only way to motivate vendors into using stronger encryption (and if they don't want to put in the effort, drop the whole idea of encryption entirely, as should be the case with DVDs if you ask me).

Of course, I'm assuming that being able to make better educated decisions about security is "a matter of public concern", so maybe that's what Justice Janice has a problem with.