EFF Warns TI Not To Harass Calculator Hobbyists

Ponca City, We love you writes "The EFF has warned Texas Instruments not to pursue legal threats against calculator hobbyists who perform modifications to the company's programmable graphing calculators. TI's calculators perform a 'signature check' that allows only approved operating systems to be loaded, but researchers have reverse-engineered signing keys, allowing tinkerers to install custom operating systems and unlock new functionality in the calculators' hardware. In response, TI has unleashed a torrent of demand letters claiming that the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act require the hobbyists to take down commentary about and links to the keys. 'This is not about copyright infringement. This is about running your own software on your own device — a calculator you legally bought,' says EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick. 'Yet TI still issued empty legal threats in an attempt to shut down discussion of this legitimate tinkering. Hobbyists are taking their own tools and making them better, in the best tradition of American innovation.'"

Comments

Nonsense.

[jeffb (2.718)]

"Hobbyists are taking their own tools and making them better, in the best tradition of American innovation"? I think you misspelled "Pirates and cyber-terrorists are stealing money from TI's hardworking engineers at virtual gunpoint."

Re:Nonsense.

[TubeSteak]

I think you misspelled "Pirates and cyber-terrorists are stealing money from TI's hardworking engineers at virtual gunpoint."

Now we just need to spice thay message up with a flavorful rap.
"Don't tinker with your pocket thinker"
"It's not cool to mod your calc in school"
etc

/I know it'll never compare to "don't copy that floppy" but it's a start.

Re:Nonsense.

[Cyberia]

Ummm... My opinion is that the hobbyists are just trying to fix some bugs in calculators that the *IAA has been running into. Like for example, when they calculate damages. I think the results look similar to this: 3055 songs pirated * 0.99 per song = $309,234,408,345,345,384.94 in damages...

Re:Nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you misspelled, "I am too stupid to detect sarcasm in a text-based medium".

Re:Nonsense.

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Well, he was going to program his TI to act as a sarcasm detector, but....

Re:Nonsense.

[werewolf1031]

"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so"
~some skinny bald pacifist guy...

Point being, of course, that just because something is codified into law, doesn't necessarily make it right.

Re:Nonsense.

[schon]

Which code, precisely, is being protected?

Breaking the checksum allows you to load alternate code on the calculator, so how exactly does it protect a copyrighted work?

Re:Nonsense.

[athlon02]

I know you're kidding, but the sad thing is that this is probably just company lawyers trying to justify their jobs. Most TI engineers are likely to not care or love the hacks for the geek factor. TI ought to capitalize on this, not suppress it.

Re:Nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no issue with the legality of what the hackers did. Article 17, section 1201(f) explicitly exempts this situation (from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201):
"a person ... may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program ... that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs"

Re:Nonsense.

[Sir_Lewk]

Bullshit, the "checksum" (really a cryptographic key used for verifying signatures) is free for all to see as well, all we did was factorize it.

Re:Nonsense.

[Romancer]

Yes you are.

You are allowed to totally reload any software onto that hardware that you legally own/create/patch to make work.
You are not allowed to use that altered or custom software to gain free access to their programming database for schedule information since that's part of the subscription you signed up for to use the box as it was. That's not to say that you couldn't make some software that gets the onformation from another source and uses the hardware to do the DVR functions using alternate drivers and all.

You purchased the box and subscribe to the service. If you don't want the service you can cancel. Unless you got a deal for signing up for a number of years you're done with them and keep the hardware. You can now do with it as you please. Smash it with a hammer, sell it on ebay, or load a flavor of linux and have a dedicated dvr box with full control of the hardware you own. Minus the warranty of course. But really? What are electronics warranties worth these days anyway? Hack it!

Re:Nonsense.

[Demonspawn]

A long time ago I was doing consulting work and had the misfortune of being selected for jury duty. As I would not be fully-compensated for my time (I was my own employer), I wanted to get out of that case as fast as possible. I figured I wouldn't even get selected, so I'd just lose that one day.

In Jury selection in my county, everyone is called into a holding area (cafeteria) and then groups of 30 or so are selected to sit in the courtroom for the jury selection. I was selected for a group, and then selected to sit in the jury box as one of the initial 12. I was going to be on the case.

Initial arguments was the case was about a guy fighting Carrying concealed without a permit charges. The 12 of us in the box were asked individually "is there anything that would prevent us from ruling on this case in accordance to the laws?"

I didn't have the time to sit on the case, so I replied "I'm a Constitutionalist and I know what Jury Nullification means."

Oh, I was released alright; SO WAS EVERY PROSPECTIVE JUROR IN THE ROOM!!!!

30 of us got out of jury duty because I said the magic words. The State is that afraid of people knowing they have power over them.

The experience greatly influenced my view of government.

Jailbreaking iPhones?

[Anonymous Coward]

someone show apple this news. :/

Re:Jailbreaking iPhones?

[recoiledsnake]

They're not. But facts wouldn't get in the way of some good old fashioned hyperbole, particularly if it involves whatever vendor you're choosing to hate.

Wrong, the crap that Apple pulls is way worse than TI can dream of.

Calculators are not advertised or thought of by most people as mobile computers. TI doesn't advertize "There's an App for that". It's sad that Apple forces developers to jump through hoops just to get an App proved and bans any political or other useful Apps under the name of duplicate functionality. Apple also has a forced developer tax of 30% and hence prohibits downloads from the developer's website. The alternative is to jailbreak, but it breaks when updated and is not for casual users. Apple even says that the iPhone and iPod touch can be considered as netbooks(which are otherwise normal computers without the App store bullshit).

Uh, why just TI?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about all the similar crap that goes on with other devices? iPhone, XBOX, Wii, NDS, plus loads others?! EFF, why aren't you defending user's rights there?

Re:Uh, why just TI?

[palegray.net]

How much money have you contributed to the EFF? It's amazing how many people make demands like yours without giving the slightest thought to the expenses involved. In addition, any movement in the right direction is progress. Maybe TI will decide to sue some hobbyists, with the EFF ready to fight for a legal precedent that might finally put a stop to this nonsense.

Re:Uh, why just TI?

[conteXXt]

Exactly. If the EFF decides to pursue this to the end, it will more than likely give others pause when trying to stop people from USING their PURCHASED electronic devices.

They aren't talking about "hacking IP". They are talking about using hardware, think linux on Intel hardware. If Intel required signed bootloaders, do you think the law would protect them too?

Re:Uh, why just TI?

[geminidomino]

Not a bad question, despite the flaming and/or dismissive replies.

My guess is that they feel like they have a better chance of winning if TI calls their bluff about calculators than if Nintendo did about Wiis, since the "it's only for teh P1Rasee!" argument is pretty much inapplicable.

 

Re:Uh, why just TI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also it is a lot harder make claims about DRM and piracy and such when you are dealing with a calculator. So this legal fight would be easier to win than eg vs Nintendo who can say "if we don't do it we will lose X amount of money." TI can't exactly claim that they are losing money from this because they don't sell any kind of software add ons for their calculator (afaik.)

Re:Uh, why just TI?

[ZPWeeks]

I 3 the EFF.

Obviously your devotion is higher than mine, I just less than three them.

Re:Uh, why just TI?

[zerocool^]

How much money have you contributed to the EFF?

Over $500 in the last 5 years.

I have a bumper sticker. But, seriously, this is one of the only groups fighting the good fight.

Re:I can see TI's point

[MichaelSmith]

The product was not sold as a computer or development platform. It was sold as an end user product with documented functionality as described in the user's manual. Sure enough, when the hacks disable their machines TI will get the support call. Most slashdotters will probably flame me for this.

I would be very surprised if a calculator hobbyist tried to get support for a modded device. And it is pretty easy for TI to say the warranty is void so STFU in that situation.

How many ubuntu users make support calls to Microsoft?

Re:Perfectly valid

[JohnFen]

It's really hard for me to see how TI has a case under the DMCA at all. They're claiming the anti-circumvention clause, but it doesn't seem to apply here.

The anti-circumvention clause makes it a violation to circumvent copy protection -- but what the hobbyists are circumventing in not copy protection, it's a validation key. Without the key, you can still read and copy the existing OS without a hitch. The key is needed to put you own intellectual property on the device, no to copy theirs.

The key itself was never published by TI, and as far as I can tell was never registered with the copyright office, so copyright doesn't apply to that (even if it can apply to a number, which I doubt.)

So where's the copyright violation? this looks like a criminal (bad faith) abuse of the DMCA to me.

Re:Perfectly valid

[QuoteMstr]

No. The DMCA reads "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".

How does TI's signing system do that? The TI system just prevents people from loading a new OS onto devices that they already own. It doesn't protect access to work.

The DMCA is a bad law, but it's not so broad as to say "everything to which a technology company with a market capitalization of over $10 million objects is henceforth illegal."

Re:Perfectly valid

[Quasar1999]

All sorts of companies produce the exact same hardware and then have a registry bit/flag hidden somewhere to enable the more expensive features. nVidia and their Quadro cards comes to mind... Or Intel and their underclock/overclock crap... the chips are identical, one is stamped with a different number and frozen at a different multiplier.

TI probably has some features disabled or unavailable in their lower-end models, hack the software, and lo and behold, the actual hardware can probably do most of the same stuff the more expensive model can. I can see why they wouldn't want people *SHARING* this information with the general public.

Actually, come to think of it, if TI loses on this one, I'm quite eager to start 'testing' satellite TV signals again... After all, it's just some keys used for signing, right? I purchased my hardware receiver for money, right? Quite the slippery slope, isn't it?

Streisand Effect

[cosm]

When will companies realize that kicking and screaming about an issue they can't legitimatize will kick them in the testicles? Will T.I. really lose oodles of greenbacks because Joe geek likes to mod his calculator to play Mario or run Linux or watch porn (last item questionable). I highly doubt people hacking their calculators will cut into revenue, if anything it will increase it by bolstering interest in the extended possibilities of their products.
Technophiles do not like to buy equipment they are legally castrated for modding or learning about the inner-workings.

When profit is valued more than satisfaction of customers...oh wait..*status quo* *status quo*.

The answer to the original question lies our government and legal system's ability to cease giving them the fucking pacifier every time they cry wolf.

Re:I can see TI's point

[geminidomino]

I have an automotive screwdriver that was sold as an automotive screwdriver, not a...a... window...keeper-open...thing.

If Sears/Craftsman has a problem with that, tough. Same concept.

Re:Perfectly valid

[Pulzar]

All sorts of companies produce the exact same hardware and then have a registry bit/flag hidden somewhere to enable the more expensive features. nVidia and their Quadro cards comes to mind... Or Intel and their underclock/overclock crap... the chips are identical, one is stamped with a different number and frozen at a different multiplier.

That's why those types of things are done with fuses, so that's it's virtually impossible to re-enable features that have been fused out. It's certainly impossible to do purely in software.

The problem is losing trusted status

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA is totally ridiculous, but it's the only thing TI can grasp onto in this situation. TI graphing calculators are the de facto standard for many high school and university level math classes. It's easy to verify that one has had the memory erased when it's in an untampered state. Of course there are somewhat sneaky ways to make it look like it's been erased without close inspection, but performing the reset in front of someone made it almost a certainty. If the hack causes schools to move away from such an "untrustworthy" device, TI stands to lose many sales of those overpriced gadgets.

Innovation

[sincewhen]

in the best tradition of American innovation

But how can this be innovation if no-one is making any money from it?

How do you copyright factors of a number?

[Myria]

The numbers they are distributing are the prime factors of the RSA key used by the calculators. The factors were determined by a general number field sieve calculation; this was effective because the keys are only 512 bits long.

The public key itself - the modulus - might be subject to copyright. However, the prime factors were never copied from TI - they were mathematically determined from the modulus. Attacking them because they distribute numbers mathematically derived from a copyrighted number is new legal territory.

If numbers derived from a calculation on a copyrightable number are themselves "derivative works" in the copyright sense, it would cause far-reaching problems well beyond calculators. For one thing, it would be illegal to distribute SHA-1 hashes of copyrighted material without permission.

Re:Working as intended

[langelgjm]

Well, stick around some more, because it's not what the DMCA is designed to prevent.

As others have pointed out, you can only invoke the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA if the technological protection measures are controlling access to a copyrighted work. Simply bypassing a measure alone is not a violation of the DMCA.

In this case, they obtained keys that allow them to install custom software on the device. Where that software comes from may be a copyright issue, but that is not relevant to the overall matter of whether obtaining and using the keys is a violation of the DMCA. These keys control whether the hardware accepts given software; rather than controlling access to copyrighted software, the keys, in a manner of speaking, control the software's access to the hardware, so it's not a matter for the DMCA.

Re:Perfectly valid

[X.25]

Actually, come to think of it, if TI loses on this one, I'm quite eager to start 'testing' satellite TV signals again... After all, it's just some keys used for signing, right? I purchased my hardware receiver for money, right? Quite the slippery slope, isn't it?

Yes. Finding keys on smartcards in order to watch TV program you haven't paid for is the same as finding keys on a calculator so you can put your software on it.

Man, you are a fucking genius.

Re:Perfectly valid

[bsDaemon]

Because in the case of direct tv, you're paying for the service, not the hardware. If i go down to Best Buy and shell out $200 or whatever for a new TI-89 Titanium (my classic TI-89 is starting to look somewhat stayed...), then I never need anything from TI again. I take that thing, and I'm done. No real need to plug it into anything; TI doesn't beam the CAS down via CDMA wireless signal like some sort of Kindle thing.

Basically, with the calculator, the hardware itself is the FINAL PURCHASE, whereas with DirectTV, you're basically renting the hardware as a means to access a service, which is what you're actually paying for in the end. Cheating on what you're paying for as far as channels go is clearly wrong. Modifying a piece of hardware that once bought never needs to have any interaction with the mother company again is completely different.

What about the need for uniformity?

[matzahboy]

Although a Ti-83 can definitely be enhanced by a custom OS, the usefulness of a Ti-83 would greatly decrease for students if custom OS's existed. On many standardized tests, including the SATs and ACTs, the tests specify which calculators are permitted for the test. They have a very specific list, based on which ones they think are not too powerful and would give an unfair advantage to a test taker. All ti-83's are allowed on either test for example. But if the makers of the test knew that people could have ti-83's that had undocumented, unfair functions (such as symbolic algebraic solving as in the ti-89), the test makers would most likely disallow these calculators. Why do you think TI still sells the Ti-83 plus, a calculator created in 1999? Certainly hardware abilities and processor speeds have greatly increased in the last 10 years. The reason is that test makers will not accept calculators with very powerful abilities. They want the student to solve the problem and not the calculator. When browsing calculators at education.ti.com, each calculator has a page called "exam acceptance" (ex. http://education.ti.com/educationportal/sites/US/productDetail/us_ti83p.html?bid=2). That is because TI sells a large number of its calculators to students. The custom OS's could greatly hurt TI's reputation in the eyes of its biggest supporters: the test makers.

Re:What about the need for uniformity?

[Ranzear]

When you take most tests, the test takers take this in to account and force you to reset your calculators, deleting all of your programs that you could have stored your notes in. There is no way to check for a different OS

Except this is easily circumvented by faking a memory reset in the calculator's own programming. There are even assembly-programmed 'calculator in a calculator' tricks through ZShell and other means to even make the calculator appear to have wiped itself clean and empty, even a fake and working 'memory' screen and an apparently complete working emulation of the base calculator (Xzibit would be proud). One little button combo or phrase and the calculator exits the fakeout to access whatever you like, and can even be put back to the emulation by a panic button.

Re:What about the need for uniformity?

[CodeBuster]

The custom OS's could greatly hurt TI's reputation in the eyes of its biggest supporters: the test makers.

Well cry me a river, why is that the problem of hardware hackers who have already PAID for their devices? If we had a law against every activity which might damage somebody else's business model then we would be living in a police state already. If the test makers don't want "powerful calculators" used on their exams then why not simply ban all calculators? If they are interested in testing mathematical knowledge rather than rote arithmetic or button pressing ability then why not simply design the test along those lines in the first place and enforce the suggested ban against electronic assistance? Technology is a moving target which will change over time; attempting to fix it in place by law, for whatever reason, is both destructive and counter-productive.

Re:What about the need for uniformity?

[khallow]

Only one problem with that. You ever seen how people abuse things that they are borrowing even for a short time? Plus the calculators would have to be lugged from test site to test site giving even more room for them to be broken.

Calculators are cheap. Just buy more.

And what happens to the person who can't get a calculator because one got broken on the trip to the test site?

Bring extras or refund the test taker's money. It's not hard.

Truly, the test makers should just go back to not allowing programmable graphing calculators and allow nothing better than a scientific calculator. That is all a student should need for taking a test.

And how do they know that a student hasn't modded their calculator to be either "programmable" or a communication device? This whole affair illustrates a flaw with the standardized tests. Namely, that they're more interested in reducing liability (and a rather weak liability at that) than in producing a reliable and trustworthy test.

Here are da Keyz

[ealbers]

Here are the three keys: TI-83 (Plus): n=82EF4009ED7CAC2A5EE12B5F8E8AD9A0 AB9CC9F4F3E44B7E8BF2D57A2F2BEACE 83424E1CFF0D2A5A7E2E53CB926D61F3 47DFAA4B35B205B5881CEB40B328E58F p=B709D3A0CD2FEC08EAFCCF540D8A100BB38E5E091D646ADB7B14D021096FFCD q=B7207BD184E0B5A0B89832AA68849B29EDFB03FBA2E8917B176504F08A96246CB d=4D0534BA8BB2BFA0740BFB6562E843C7 EC7A58AE351CE11D43438CA239DD9927 6CD125FEBAEE5D2696579FA3A3958FF4FC54C685EAA91723BC8888F292947BA1 e=11 TI-84 (Plus): prp77 factor: 67070508990537181066342707695603050521324524613874331879259881495826493920589 prp78 factor: 186923771200711284770368041572205320486346816476524340240220962467860568859381 n=EF5FEF0B0AB6E22731C17539658B2E91E53A59BF8E00FCC81D05758F26C1791CD35AF6101B1E35 43AC3E78FD8BB8F37FC8FE85601C502EABC9132CEAD4711CB1 p=94489014C63CC9E1E1ADB192DBBDD1F78F90A630DA9C86EFC4CBCA44E5B4D54D q=19D431AF2794229620B884E3750D622D1C74F2E4569DC15486FC8D5A3BCDFE2F5 d=2A3E1B2010F318D9BD7C7E19300980B055A0E2A9554B77E7142E23CDF7C7CA13C233A3D462FDFC 968B1F9CEAF2AC2CF305147992AD9E834192ACEBB517DB9941 e=11

Ahem!

[pandrijeczko]

in the best tradition of American innovation.

Sir Frank Whittle (British) and Dr. Hans Von Ohain (German) - indepently invented the jet engine.
Sir Alexander Fleming (Scottish - discovered penicillin.
Leonardo da Vinci (Italian) - inventor, artist, mathematician, painter, etc. etc. ... ...
etc.

I fully support what the EFF do but innovation is not simply limited to America - can I suggest in future they use the adjective "human", rather than "American", in similar statements? Otherwise, they're just affirming the stereotype that many of we non-US residents have, namely that Americans have no interest in the world outside their own shores.