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!"

Comments

Re:5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA

[Blue Stone]

Personally, I thought it'd be pretty neat to encrypt something using the text of a DMCA takedown notice as a key.

But context IS IMPORTANT!!!

[mcrbids]

I'll be googling 5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA everyday until I win that lotto jackpot ... and don't think I won't. I'm crazy enough to do it. I swear I am. Really.

Yeah, funny, and all that. But people here frequently don't get the point.

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. // now done with armchair legal advice, resuming programming, IANAL YMMV and all that jazz //

Re:But context IS IMPORTANT!!!

[sabre86]

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. But what if it's the encryption key for my encrypted data. It's hard to say data "belongs" to anybody to begin with, and if I paid for the DVD on which the data is encrypted I should unquestionably have access to the tools necessary to decrypt it (for fair use backups, for example) regardless of whether I own the data or not. Furthermore, I contend that free speech protections allow me to say "x is the key to the AACS encryption scheme." Even if you don't agree, arguing (for example) that it's analogous to giving out password or personal data is fallacious. The data encrypted by the key is neither, and, as I noted earlier, decryption ability is necessary for fair use.

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. Yeah, yeah... but we don't ban the tennis raquet. Nor do we ban you talking about the tennis raquet. Anything, anything at all, can be abused. That doesn't mean we should ban it, or talking about it in a certain context. By your own logic, you've commited a crime... by talking about using a tennis raquet in the context of murder. You've "crossed the line."

Even so, I'll grant you that such logic might sell in court. That doesn't matter to me, I feel that one's free speech rights should only be limited by what actually harms others... not merely could be used to harm others. Anything can be abused.

--sabre86

Re:5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA

[Ernesto Alvarez]

Shame on you!
Your logic is flawed.

1. Rot-13 is an encryption device, assuming your comment is correct.
2. ROT-13 is a simple substitution cypher. Decryption is defined as subtracting 13 characters, wrapping at A, where ROT13 encryption is defined as adding 13 characters, wrapping at Z.
3. By extension, any substitution cypher is a DMCA-approved cypher.

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!