md-

i do agree with that point of view. I often referred to models as 'modern mp3s' storing a lossfull but lookalike version of information in order to counter that 'AI is totally new and not violating copyright by storing information in a magic fashion' argument.

as you have stated 'And yes, this project was built almost entirely with Claude Code with a bunch of manual verification and testing.' this code is not copyright protected, therefore you are not allowed to apply a MIT LICENSE to this project.

.. just a quick reminder for anyone outside of dictatorships: there is independent media/press in germany, the article was not produced by any government entity.

german here:

Tutanota is a german email provider which encrypts incoming email after those were received. The court ordered tutanota to provide incoming emails to a single email account to law enforcement. This is "lawful interception" as you know it, as "service-side encryption" is useless against lawful interception laws.

- md

a software vulnerability itself is information about a vulnerability. Information itself is not copyrighted, nobody can own it.

A researcher however can own code he/her wrote, e.g. exploit code

the whole thing is basically a webmail service, but the client provides crypto-functions to encrypt and decrypt messages locally using a smart card reader. The client software has an API which is provided as a webservice on localhost:9998 (FQDN: bealocalhost.de). At first they ran this service with a certificate that was signed by a trusted CA. I reported them for disclosing the private key of that cert. Communication between the client (java-application) and the webmail service (website) is done via javascript in the browser, which connects to services on localhost using websockets.

md