1998-01-15 - BUG Bounty…

Header Data

From: Peter Wayner <pcw@access.digex.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: d148766f10d5dc8defcbb5318cb877c0b908405ab596106931fb72106d92c35b
Message ID: <v03102842b0e4191da2db@[199.125.128.5]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1998-01-15 20:23:54 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:23:54 +0800

Raw message

From: Peter Wayner <pcw@access.digex.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:23:54 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: BUG Bounty...
Message-ID: <v03102842b0e4191da2db@[199.125.128.5]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




My publisher is reprinting _Digital Copyright Protection_, a
book that describes how to use encryption and steganography to
control digital data. I get to fix any problems that are out
there. To encourage people who may have spotted errors, I'm
offering a bounty of $20 to the first person who reports an
error subject to the following limitations:

* The errors must be technical. I appreciate anyone who wants to
correct my grammar, but I think that these types of errors are
too hard to pin down. We could spend more time arguing than
solving them.

* I reserve the right to aggregate errors and determine the
right way to split them up. This isn't a loophole, it's just a
way to prevent someone from noting a pattern and asking to be
paid for each separate occurance. For instance, imagine that
someone notes that I forgot to put a page number on a blank page
at the front of the book. Is every page number after that wrong?
I promise I won't use this as a loophole.

* I reserve the right to make arbitrary judgements about the
"first" person to submit a claim. This is to prevent a club of
people from finding an error and reporting it in synchrony. I
may choose to pay each person the $20 reward, choose one I feel
is most deserving, or even split the reward n ways. It's up to
me. I'll probably choose the first one unless there are
extenuating circumstances.

Thanks to everyone who takes part in this project. Let me know
if you have any questions. In the past, I've found that few
people reported the errors and I'm hoping that $20 will be
enough of an inducement. Perhaps there are no errors there? This
is the best way to prove a negative.

Thanks again,

Peter Wayner







Thread