Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

23 of 405 comments (clear)

  1. Nonsense. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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."

    1. Re:Nonsense. by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Nonsense. by Cyberia · · Score: 5, Funny

      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...

    3. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    4. Re:Nonsense. by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    5. Re:Nonsense. by werewolf1031 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

    6. Re:Nonsense. by schon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

    7. Re:Nonsense. by athlon02 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Nonsense. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  2. Re:Uh, why just TI? by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Uh, why just TI? by conteXXt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
  4. Re:I can see TI's point by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  5. Re:Perfectly valid by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Perfectly valid by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

  7. Re:I can see TI's point by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. The problem is losing trusted status by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. Innovation by sincewhen · · Score: 5, Funny

    in the best tradition of American innovation

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

    --
    -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  10. How do you copyright factors of a number? by Myria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
  11. Re:Perfectly valid by X.25 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  12. Re:Perfectly valid by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. What about the need for uniformity? by matzahboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What about the need for uniformity? by CodeBuster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  14. Here are da Keyz by ealbers · · Score: 5, Informative

    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