Slashdot Mirror
Own Your Own 128-Bit Integer
Byte Swapper writes "After all the fuss over the AACS trying to censor a certain 128-bit number that now has something over two million hits on Google, the folks at Freedom to Tinker would like to point out that you too can own your own integer. They've set up a script that will generate a random number, encrypt a copyrighted haiku with it, and then deed the number back to you. You won't get a copyright on the number or the haiku, but your number has become an illegal circumvention device under the DMCA, such that anyone subject to US law caught distributing it can be punished under the DMCA's anti-trafficking section, for which the DMCA's Safe Harbor provisions do not apply. So F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663C088 is truly mine now, and you can pry it out of my cold, dead fingers!"
Personally, I thought it'd be pretty neat to encrypt something using the text of a DMCA takedown notice as a key.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
One of the basic properties of copyright is that if you enclose it in quotes and attribute the source, like "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0", then there's no problem. This quoted integer is the public key for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I got one of these yesterday, but really, who has time to remember such long numbers. However, I know that it had a "D2" in it, so I figure anytime I see a number which contains this unique fingerprint, I'll assume it is my number. Fortunately, no-one has violated my rights by posting a number with "D2" in it as a comment to this article yet. You all are warned!
Practically every cryptographer will agree that as soon as your secret key is known, it is too late for damage control. The only thing you can do is change the key. Trying to suppress it is entirely futile and a singn of significant stupidity.
At the same time, you cannot protect numbers. They do not belong to anybody.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Actually parent was funny, but he brought up an interesting point. How far can things go when a simple number can be made illegal under the DMCA? If i use a sequence of numbers for encryption and then those numbers show up on the lottery, is the lottery liable for a DMCA violation? Maybe someone should intentionally 'abuse' this system to force the DMCA to be corrected.
Lots of laws need to be broken. Bad laws disobeyed get them changed. How do you feel about the 'criminal' blacks that rode in the front of the bus in Mongomery Alabama in the 60's. Clearly criminal, but was it wrong?
DRM is not about copyright infringement, it is about criminalizing not letting some one control how you use what you actually buy and pay for.
I am sick of hearing that not paying some media giant every time you hear some song, or watch some movie is piracy. I do not think it is, and I do not think there is naything wrong with sharing it for free.
What I think copyright piracy is, it to make counterfeit CD's DVD's etc and selling them for money.
I see nothing at all wrong with sharing software, movies, songs, books, etc as long as you are not representing them to be original or charging for them.
Is this the way the laws are today? , nope, cause we have corrupt politicos doing the bidding of the big media companies that finance their campaigns.
So if my conscience tells me some law is wrong, unfair, or unjust, oh well.
Bad laws need to be broken often enough to make them change.
Looks at the 09 f9 thing, people have just had enough silliness with this.
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
The DMCA never states that it is illegal to distribute any number, it states that it is illegal to distribute a number which has the sole/main/intended/implied/whatever-else purpose of breaking a copyright measure.
If you had encrypted your haiku with any 128bit number then it would most probably be deemed that someone with a 128bit IP address was using your number by co-incidence. If however your 128-bit haiku encryption number appeared on a "how to decrypt encrypted haikus" website, then you would have a case however.
It's not the number - it's the context of the number. Yes, I can use this number for my WEP key. I can print it on my T-shirt, print it on toilet paper and wipe my ass with it. I can do whatever you want with this number so long as I don't identify it as the decryption key for YOUR encrypted data.
Here's another example: A tennis racket. By itself, a tennis racket is made for whacking tennis balls. However, I could whack YOU with the racket, and suddenly its role changes from "sporting equipment" to "deadly weapon". But it's the same piece of equipment, and yes, a tennis racket is a plenty good enough weapon to kill somebody with.
It's not the racket itself that's deadly, it's the context for how its used or presented. There's a world of difference between "I'm going to whack the ball" and "I'm going to whack your balls"...
By publishing this number along with phrases like "decryption key for NNN", you've crossed the line from just some random number to establishing the context of the number as somehow important.
So please, please PLEASE get the point - having and/or publishing a number, any number, isn't illegal. Publishing that this number (instead of the billions/trillions of others like it) is the decryption key for $FOO is what's illegal.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Your logic is flawed.
The fact that a member of a class has a certain property (ROT-13 being a DMCA approved encryption device) does not mean that all the members of that class have the same property. I am a member of the animals' group, I can use a computer therefore all animals can use a computer..... I don't think so.
Nobody said that ROT-14 would be considered an encryption device by the DMCA.
Your best chance to prove ROT-26 is a DMCA approved encryption method would be to read the legalese and find the definition of "encrpytion" in the text and hope it is not a very good definition. Something like "a function INTENDED to prevent observation by an untrusted party" would be enough, especially if they do not mention keys. In that case, it doesn't have to work successfully to be an "encryption device".
If that is the case, I propose the identity function as the new DRM standard.
C0 88 56 63 C5 56 41 D8 5B E3 74 9D 02 11 F9 09 to everyone, and remember, Intel CPUs are little endian!
GPG 0x1B479C78