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!"

23 of 477 comments (clear)

  1. 5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's right, 5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA is mine, and I'll be playing it in the Impossiball Lottery twice a week until it pays off. No more Quick Picks for me!

    Remember kids, no one else out there can ever use 5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA to play the lotto, to decrypt anything ... or even as a WPA (or WEP) key!

    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.

    1. Re:5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA by Blue+Stone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 5, Funny

      US courts ruled in the Adobe case that Rot13 was a form of copy protection.


      Oddly enough, I believe it can then be argued that ROT-26 is also an encryption device:

      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.
      4. ROT-1..infinity follow the same algorithm as ROT-13. They simply aren't symmetrical in the way that ROT-13 happens to be (re-encryption leads to plaintext). The symmetry of ROT-13 is purely coincidental due to the fact that 13 is 1/2 of 26. It is not necessarily an intended function of the cypher. This phenomenon will also exhibit periodically in ROT-26, ROT-39, ROT-52, and all later ROT-type algorithms with a key which is a multiple of 13.
      5. ROT-26 is included in the set of ROT-1 through ROT-infinity. Coincidentally, it also exhibits the quirk of symmetry, where re-encryption reveals the plaintext.

      Q.E.D. - ROT-26 is an approved DMCA cypher, and can be used to protect copyrighted materials.

      This post is copyrighted material which has been encrypted using ROT-26. By reading it, you have circumvented my copy protection device. Please cease and desist immediately.
    3. Re:5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA by Ernesto+Alvarez · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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!
  2. ok then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll see your F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663C088 and raise you a F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663D184

  3. Eat it! by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 5, Funny
    5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA

    Ha! You'll never catch me coppahs!

    --
    We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
    1. Re:Eat it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear Corpuscavernosa.

      We represent WrongSizeGlass Freedom-To-Tinker Content System Licensing Administrator, WCS LA. WFCS is an integrated set of technological protection measures that controls access to and prevents unauthorized copying of copyrighted Haikus.

      It is our understanding that you are providing to the public the above-identified tools and services, and are thereby providing and offering to the public a technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed, produced, or marketed for the purpose of circumventing the technological protection measures afforded by WFCS (hereafter, the "circumvention offering"). Doing so constitutes a violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA"), 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1). Providing or offering the circumvention offering identified above, and any other such offering that is primarily designed or produced to circumvent protection measures, or which has only limited commercial significant purpose other than to circumvent, or which are offered to the public with knowledge that it is for use in circumventing, violates the rights of WCS and any others harmed as well. See 1201(a)(2), 1201(b)(1), and 1203.

      In view of the foregoing apparent anti-circumvention violations, we demand that you immediately:

      1) remove or cause to be removed the above-specified WFCS circumvention offering and any other circumvention offering which is designed, produced or provided to circumvent WFCS or to assist others in doing so, and/or any links directly thereto, and

      2) refrain from posting or causing to be provided any WFCS circumvention offering or from assisting others in doing so, including by direct links thereto, on any website now or at any time in the future.

      Failure to do so will subject you to legal liability.

      Please confirm to the undersigned in writing no later than noon a week from the above-indicated date that you have complied with these demands. You may reach the undersigned by telephone at [private] or by email at [private]@proskauer.com. WCS LA reserves all further rights and remedies with respect to this matter.

      Very truly yours,

      [private]
      Counsel for WFCS LA

    2. Re:Eat it! by Daengbo · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean "All your base 16 are belong to me," don't you?

  4. The answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm going to go register "42".

    Then I will own the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

  5. Re:Typical of liberals... by ettlz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Making fun of the RIAA and the DMCA to justify pirating music. You are all criminals.
    Piss off, some of us are communists.
  6. Kudos to Heavy Metal Jacket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    97 A5 9D EB B9 9C AD 48 5C 0F 61 3B 51 46 73 30

    This is my 128-bit integer. There are many like it but this one is mine. My 128-bit integer is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my 128-bit integer is useless. Without my 128-bit integer I am useless.

    --
    Above content protected under DMCA, DRM and AACS (as a trade secret) by Johnny F.
    --
    Oh, drat, I spilled the bean.

  7. MINE by blhack · · Score: 5, Funny

    i hereby state copyright over the number 277, which is an expression of duality of the universe (heat/cold good/evil), and the fact all things, including 7, which is lucky,, are better in twos. Any expression of this piece of my work without my express written consent will be prosecuted to the full extent of any applicable laws.

    --UPDATE--

    I have noticed that some pirates have converted this note to a tone, they are calling it C sharp (277hz). My number is to be represented as a digit only, this is obviously an encryption circumvention technique and will not be tolerated. Please fork over 5 trillion dollars and your first born child.

    NOW!

    --
    NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
  8. Re:I am not a number! by iknowcss · · Score: 5, Funny

    SirBruce (679714)

    Umm ...

    --
    Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
  9. Re:Interference by Reverend528 · · Score: 5, Funny

    even if script seems down.
    it worked fine for me. My number is 503.
  10. Re:Typical of liberals... by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Making fun of the RIAA and the DMCA to justify pirating music. You are all criminals.

          First off, we're talking about DVD's and movies, not music.

          Secondly then if you want to live in a world where a corporation has the power to determine IF you are allowed to watch a movie you purchased, how many times, and on what equipment - then so be it. Most of us resent the very thought, much less this feeble and poorly thought out attempt at implementation.

          Thirdly, copyright infringement has only recently been made a "crime", in the US. In many other countries it's a civil matter. You know, I have never driven under the speed limit - mostly I have driven 15 to 20% over. Should I go to jail for that, too?

          I go to movies. I pay to go to the movies. Why do I have to sit through a 5 minute sermon on how evil piracy is when I paid to get there? Then again, when I buy a DVD, why the hell should I be FORCED to watch trailers and nowadays even ads? So I rip it, and get my right of choice back.

          While this code can be used to rip things and publish them on the internet, it's useful to me mostly to be able to see the movies I bought in the format I want. Call me a criminal if you will. I will call you a mindless consumer. Take what you're given and shut up. Leave those of us who want to DO something about the situation alone - when the REAL information revolution happens you'll have us to thank.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  11. I think I'll take 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 by YodaYid · · Score: 5, Funny

    That one should pay off pretty quickly :-)

    1. Re:I think I'll take 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 by jamesh · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's my IP address you insensitive clod!

      I hereby give you permission to try and hack me on that IP address!

  12. Re:i own the answer to everything by Allocius+Reikei · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since it's hex, you own 66. Now if you owned 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2A on the other hand...

  13. Re:Typical of liberals... by TranscendentalAnarch · · Score: 5, Funny

    "you insensitive clod" would have fit nicely in there.

  14. Re:Interference by beemishboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's strange... for some reason my number is 404...

  15. My 128 bit number, to AACS programmers with love by sick_soul · · Score: 5, Funny

    fa ce ad ec ad e0 fd ec af c0 ff ee 4b ad co de

  16. But context IS IMPORTANT!!! by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 //
    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:But context IS IMPORTANT!!! by sabre86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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