I just submitted this story to slashdot. In any case, here is an article on Newsfactor, explaining how this decision will release the phone companies from their obligations to open their networks to rivals. Here is the action by the FCC, and here is a dissent by Commissioner Michael J. Copps, who warns that the commission is committing itself to "specific and potentially drastic changes to our precedent that carry with them enormous impacts in the market".
I can't think of any reason why a scummy spammer ISP would want to be an open relay. Sure, they want to be a relay, but only for their own spam and those of their trusted partners.
501(3)(c) is more than just non-profit. It's easy to form a non-profit. You simply pay the incorporation fees, and form it. 501(3)(c) corporations, on the other hand, pay no taxes, and donations to them are tax deductible. This is a much higher standard.
I said the law says "if you own a legally obtained copy of a copyrighted work, you can sell that copy". The law reads (removing ors) "the owner of a particular copy...lawfully made under this title...is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell...that copy...." Please, explain to me the difference. Actually, I'll modify my statement to the following: "if you own a legally made copy of a copyrighted work, you can sell that copy.
You can legally sell the exact bits you downloaded, or possibly the hard drive it's stored on. Anything else, and you're distributing a copy.
Agreed, I never meant that you could sell copies of your download (absent a license to copy), because they would not be legally made copies (because you have no right to copy them in the first place).
Me: If you legally make a copy on your photocopying machine, you can sell that copy.
You: Wrong. That's distribution of a copy again, and it's verboten unless permitted. Distributing copies is still infringement, and first sale is no defense.
If you legally made the copy (for instance, if you had a license to make copies), you can sell it. It's right there in black and white in the law. "the owner of a particular copy," that's you. "lawfully made under this title," if you had a license to make the copy. "is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell...that copy...."
If you have made a copy first sale does not apply to you.
Do you care to back that up with either law or a court decision?
Now, if they TOTALLY changed the comments system, maybe. But wouldn't that be a totally different website?
I guess that's what it comes down to. I totally think editable comments would be possible, and in some respects it would be preferable (at least for me). But so many other things would change and evolve, that the site really wouldn't be "slashdot" any more. It's unfortunate that slashdot and its users don't fully embrace open content, or someone could just try it and see.
And this comment system works relatively well.
Fairly well. Better than any other news comment system I know of. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved.
And really, I don't see how it's that hard to post a correction reply to one of your comments if you realize you made a mistake. Isn't that easier than devising some new comments system?
It is, somewhat, but it also leads to people making circular arguments.
Also, please point me out another site of this size that has an editable comments system that works well.
http://www.everything2.com/ I find their system far from perfect in other respects, but once you get used to the idea, I think the editable comments system is far superior.
I agree that the moderation system is not very good at pointing out quality, but it is pretty good at filtering out the utter garbage.
You're right. I definately exaggerated my point. The moderation system isn't useless, it's the karma system that is.
Whats the point of having a reply if it doesn't address points covered in the parent?
The point is to stop someone else from spreading untrue crap. Whether it's through responding to them (and hoping your response gets read), or having them change their original comment, it still accomplishes that goal. It's quite likely the reply would get moderated down to -1, so no one would have to actually read it once it's accomplished its purpose.
It seems like adding editable comments would just make the trolling worse, as every person would constantly edit their posts to incorporate everyone else's points and discredit anyone who responds to them disparagingly.
Again, this is what I would love about it. If someone presented a single coherent post incorporating all the others, I'd much rather read that then a 15 post reply chain arguing the point.
/. is already too competitive as far as karma goes, this would just make it moreso, it seems.
I don't think most people care about karma so much as they care about getting their posts recognized. Personally the only reason I don't post as an Anonymous Coward is that if I do so I can't keep track of when someone reply's to my posts.
Example: say you post a comment, and I reply, correcting you on a point you got wrong. Then you go back and correct your comment.
I see that as a good thing.
Then you go back and correct your comment. Now the comment I made looks like it's correcting something that doesn't need correction... And I get modded down for redundancy.
I guess if you think the moderation system is at all useful that is a bad thing. I don't.
If you could edit your comments, it would result in people debating each other, then constantly correcting their comments to try and make themselves look smarter.
Smarter posts? Oh no, we can't have that.
Also, people could karma whore a comment up to +5 then change it to some goatse.cx esque drivel.
Your post goes back to 1/2 (but never up) when you modify it.
If you're sold a legitimate copy of a copyrighted work, you can resell that copy. That's all you have the right to resell under first sale.
That's not what the law says. The law says if you own a legally obtained copy of a copyrighted work, you can sell that copy. If you legally download a copy, you can sell that copy. If you legally buy a copy, you can sell that copy. If you legally make a copy on your photocopying machine, you can sell that copy. If you legally burn a CD-R, you can sell that copy.
Anthony, it sounds to me like you're confusing selling a copy you've bought (which is not the kind of "distribution" controlled by copyright law) with making new copies and selling them (which is).
Selling a copy you've bought is "distribution" which is an exclusive right given to copyright holders under Section 106(3).
You are using the word "distributing" to mean two things: "publishing" on the one hand, and "reselling" on the other.
I am using the word "distribute" to mean: "to sell, rent, lease, lend, or otherwise transfer ownership".
When Red Hat presses CDs and sells them, they are making copies of Linus's code.
When Red Hat presses CDs, they are making copies of Linus's code. When Red Hat sells those copies, they are distributing copies of Linus's code.
When you buy Red Hat CDs and then resell them, you are not making copies; you are merely selling copies Red Hat has made.
When you resell Red Hat CDs, you are distributing copies of Linus's code.
Again, the example of books makes it obvious. If I buy a copy of Programming Perl and sell it, I am not making copies, and O'Reilly has no authority to stop me. If I buy a copy, scan it into my computer, and email PDFs of it to all my friends, I am making copies, and to do so legally I need permission from O'Reilly.
Sure, but the GPL gives permission to make those copies, but only if you agree to the GPL's restrictions on distribution.
Red Hat never had the right to copy and distribute Linux without sources.
Red Hat had the right to distribute Linux without sources, not to copy Linux. Once they copied it, they gave up their right to distribute Linux without sources (or a written offer).
Are you making copies? If not, copyright law has no hold over you.
Copyright law consists of more than just protections against copying. For example, Section 106(3) gives the author of Linux the exclusive right to rent Linux CDs.
GPL gives you permission to make some sorts of copies (source-included) but not others (binary-only).
Absolutely not true. I can make a binary only copy, and as long as I don't distribute it, I have not broken the law.
False. Red Hat's reselling is not a matter of first sale. They are distributing copies of copyrighted works.
So if Red Hat makes a copy and sells it to me, I can resell it. Or if I make a copy and sell it to Red Hat, Red Hat can resell it. Or if we both make copies, and sell them to each other, we can both resell them.
Is that what you're saying? I see no legal basis for that ridiculous situation.
In the absence of the GPL, Red Hat has no right at all to distribute (for example) Linus's code
First answer this. Do you agree or disagree that I have the right to distribute Red Hat CDs.
Copyright law makes it quite clear that I do have that right, and distributing Red Hat CDs is distributing Linus's binaries.
Distributing Red Hat CDs without distributing source code is a right that I have, that Red Hat does not have. Do you agree with that?
Now, assuming you do agree to that, explain to me why Red Hat does not have that right. I am asserting that it is because they gave that right up when they agreed to the GPL.
You don't have to "agree to the GPL" to be bound by its provisions when you copy GPLed software, because all the "restrictions" of the GPL are actually just the plain old ordinary restrictions of copyright law, by which you were already bound.
According to copyright law:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
Red Hat has lawfully made a Red Hat CD. They are the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under the title. Are they entitled to sell that copy without distributing source?
It seems to me (IANAL) that you're not doing anything copyright can touch: you're not copying, or making a derivative work, or the like.
Exactly. That's why the GPL is an EULA just like any other. If you agree to the GPL, you give up your right to first sale. But as long as you're not doing anything other than copying the software as a necessary step in using the software, you don't have to agree to the EULA in the first place.
The only difference between Microsft and GNU in this respect is that GNU doesn't try to make you think you're forced to agree to the EULA. They explicitly tell you you don't have to.
The buyer does (for the time being) end up without sources, and this is something the spirit of the GPL intends to avoid.
And that's the problem. Because the GPL tries to restrict something which copyright law does not (distribution of binaries without source code), it can never achieve its goal without becoming an EULA.
I have the right to distribute Red Hat binaries without distributing the source. Red Hat does not have this right. I don't see any way to explain that other than by saying that Red Hat gave up that right when they agreed to the GPL.
In the absence of a license, you have no right to copy a copyrighted work.
First of all, that's simply not true. In the absence of a license, you have limited rights to copy a copyrighted work. But I never said anything about copying, anyway.
To say that the limited grant of rights under the GPL deprives you of anything, or requires you to "give up" other rights, is a vicious lie.
Fact: When I buy a Red Hat CD from Red Hat Software, I have the right to sell that CD to someone else without giving them source code. Fact: Red Hat does not have the right to sell that CD to someone else without giving them source code. Why? Because Red Hat gave up the right to first sale when they agreed to the GPL. Red Hat was deprived of it's right to distribute CDs without distributing source.
Specifically, if I download 200 copies (for free), can I give away or sell 200 copies without being bound by the GPL under first sale?
Only if you sell the actual media to which the copies are downloaded (sell the hard drive, or download directly to CD-R). Otherwise, you're making copies, and need to agree to the GPL.
If I buy a book of prints from you, I have the right to tear the pages out of the binding, frame the individual pages, and to sell them for less than you charge for individual prints.
It's funny you should mention that. In Mirage Editions v. A.R.T. Co., the defendant was found guilty of copyright infringement for doing exactly that.
I create a new alias that bounces or/dev/null's email coming into that account.
I've been doing this for a while (actually, I usually forward the spam back to the abuse address of the person who leaked the address), unfortunately, I've run into two problems:
First of all, I have a somewhat popular domain name, and used to get lots of spam from people who lie about their email address and just put in blahblahblah@inbox.org. So to fix that I had to create a white-list rather than a black-list.
The second problem is really a result of the fix to the first. I can't simply use ebay@inbox.org, etc, because that's too easy to guess (security through obscurity), so I have to make something up. Unfortunately, I can't really remember the made up names, and I don't always have access to inbox.org to set up the white list. So instead I have an MD5 scheme. Take the name of the site, a number (incremented whenever I want to change the email address), and a special "password". Put them together in a certain order, and MD5 it (http://pajhome.org.uk/crypt/md5/ is available on any computer with javascript). So for slashdot, my current email address is 4e9fd9f4624c02685096769364a81d95@inbox.org (which I have to change since I'm now getting spam every couple days to this address). I keep the numbers (and actually the usernames) in a list on a certain publically accessible web page (javascript DES protected of course). So wherever I am as long as I have javascript access, I never forget the information I put in.
I just figured a new addition though. Put the domain name and the number in the beginning of the email address. So this email address would be slashdot14e9fd9f4624c02685096769364a81d95@inbox.or g (you don't need a separator since the MD5 is a fixed size?). The advantage is that I no longer have to have a white list in the first place, because the mail machine can simply check the full MD5.
If they handed you the private key, they have a copy of it themselves.
Obviously in theory they would destroy any copies of the keys. It would take quite a conspiracy at many levels to keep a repository of all the keys and not let the public know. That being said, it is still possible, so...
If you use that key and it becomes associated with you, then they can use that key and claim you used it.
Maybe against strangers, but my friends and family are going to believe me before they'll believe some cryptographic sequence (and apparently your paranoid friends will as well). As for strangers, I believe that the government already has the power to tell lies about me if they really want to. They could easily fabricate an audio recording, and possibly even a video recording. That's going to convince the public a lot more than some possibly cracked, possibly stolen, possibly subverted prime number.
The reason they wouldn't do this very often (if at all) is because every time they do it, they blow their cover, and more people know that they are secretly keeping keys. Of course all of those people who discover that information and can't be intimidated must be either killed or made into a lunatic in the eyes of the public, and there's only so many people you can kill or make into a lunatic without getting caught. So as long as you only use the keys for low-profile things (and even then perhaps only with people you can't establish a secure channel with), the government's not going to bother blowing its cover.
In my particular example, to eliminate spam, the signature is merely used in the first correspondence between complete strangers. That email might really be from Joe Schmoe from Topeka, KS, it might be Joe's sister, who stole the CD, or it might really be from the government, but I don't really care, because I have about the same level of trust for all three of those people. What I can do is check if the key is in a list of known spammers, and decide whether I want to bother opening it based on that. Unless the government is willing to blow its cover to send me spam, it makes no sense for them to steal anyone's private key.
Slashdot Mirror
I just submitted this story to slashdot. In any case, here is an article on Newsfactor, explaining how this decision will release the phone companies from their obligations to open their networks to rivals. Here is the action by the FCC, and here is a dissent by Commissioner Michael J. Copps, who warns that the commission is committing itself to "specific and potentially drastic changes to our precedent that carry with them enormous impacts in the market".
So say I'm a scummy spammer ISP.
I can't think of any reason why a scummy spammer ISP would want to be an open relay. Sure, they want to be a relay, but only for their own spam and those of their trusted partners.
501(3)(c) is more than just non-profit. It's easy to form a non-profit. You simply pay the incorporation fees, and form it. 501(3)(c) corporations, on the other hand, pay no taxes, and donations to them are tax deductible. This is a much higher standard.
That's not what the law says either, bucko.
I said the law says "if you own a legally obtained copy of a copyrighted work, you can sell that copy". The law reads (removing ors) "the owner of a particular copy...lawfully made under this title...is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell...that copy...." Please, explain to me the difference. Actually, I'll modify my statement to the following: "if you own a legally made copy of a copyrighted work, you can sell that copy.
You can legally sell the exact bits you downloaded, or possibly the hard drive it's stored on. Anything else, and you're distributing a copy.
Agreed, I never meant that you could sell copies of your download (absent a license to copy), because they would not be legally made copies (because you have no right to copy them in the first place).
Me: If you legally make a copy on your photocopying machine, you can sell that copy.
You: Wrong. That's distribution of a copy again, and it's verboten unless permitted. Distributing copies is still infringement, and first sale is no defense.
If you legally made the copy (for instance, if you had a license to make copies), you can sell it. It's right there in black and white in the law. "the owner of a particular copy," that's you. "lawfully made under this title," if you had a license to make the copy. "is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell...that copy...."
If you have made a copy first sale does not apply to you.
Do you care to back that up with either law or a court decision?
Now, if they TOTALLY changed the comments system, maybe. But wouldn't that be a totally different website?
I guess that's what it comes down to. I totally think editable comments would be possible, and in some respects it would be preferable (at least for me). But so many other things would change and evolve, that the site really wouldn't be "slashdot" any more. It's unfortunate that slashdot and its users don't fully embrace open content, or someone could just try it and see.
And this comment system works relatively well.
Fairly well. Better than any other news comment system I know of. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved.
And really, I don't see how it's that hard to post a correction reply to one of your comments if you realize you made a mistake. Isn't that easier than devising some new comments system?
It is, somewhat, but it also leads to people making circular arguments.
Also, please point me out another site of this size that has an editable comments system that works well.
http://www.everything2.com/ I find their system far from perfect in other respects, but once you get used to the idea, I think the editable comments system is far superior.
I agree that the moderation system is not very good at pointing out quality, but it is pretty good at filtering out the utter garbage.
You're right. I definately exaggerated my point. The moderation system isn't useless, it's the karma system that is.
Whats the point of having a reply if it doesn't address points covered in the parent?
The point is to stop someone else from spreading untrue crap. Whether it's through responding to them (and hoping your response gets read), or having them change their original comment, it still accomplishes that goal. It's quite likely the reply would get moderated down to -1, so no one would have to actually read it once it's accomplished its purpose.
It seems like adding editable comments would just make the trolling worse, as every person would constantly edit their posts to incorporate everyone else's points and discredit anyone who responds to them disparagingly.
Again, this is what I would love about it. If someone presented a single coherent post incorporating all the others, I'd much rather read that then a 15 post reply chain arguing the point.
I don't think most people care about karma so much as they care about getting their posts recognized. Personally the only reason I don't post as an Anonymous Coward is that if I do so I can't keep track of when someone reply's to my posts.
Example: say you post a comment, and I reply, correcting you on a point you got wrong. Then you go back and correct your comment.
I see that as a good thing.
Then you go back and correct your comment. Now the comment I made looks like it's correcting something that doesn't need correction... And I get modded down for redundancy.
I guess if you think the moderation system is at all useful that is a bad thing. I don't.
If you could edit your comments, it would result in people debating each other, then constantly correcting their comments to try and make themselves look smarter.
Smarter posts? Oh no, we can't have that.
Also, people could karma whore a comment up to +5 then change it to some goatse.cx esque drivel.
Your post goes back to 1/2 (but never up) when you modify it.
If you're sold a legitimate copy of a copyrighted work, you can resell that copy. That's all you have the right to resell under first sale.
That's not what the law says. The law says if you own a legally obtained copy of a copyrighted work, you can sell that copy. If you legally download a copy, you can sell that copy. If you legally buy a copy, you can sell that copy. If you legally make a copy on your photocopying machine, you can sell that copy. If you legally burn a CD-R, you can sell that copy.
Anthony, it sounds to me like you're confusing selling a copy you've bought (which is not the kind of "distribution" controlled by copyright law) with making new copies and selling them (which is).
Selling a copy you've bought is "distribution" which is an exclusive right given to copyright holders under Section 106(3).
You are using the word "distributing" to mean two things: "publishing" on the one hand, and "reselling" on the other.
I am using the word "distribute" to mean: "to sell, rent, lease, lend, or otherwise transfer ownership".
When Red Hat presses CDs and sells them, they are making copies of Linus's code.
When Red Hat presses CDs, they are making copies of Linus's code. When Red Hat sells those copies, they are distributing copies of Linus's code.
When you buy Red Hat CDs and then resell them, you are not making copies; you are merely selling copies Red Hat has made.
When you resell Red Hat CDs, you are distributing copies of Linus's code.
Again, the example of books makes it obvious. If I buy a copy of Programming Perl and sell it, I am not making copies, and O'Reilly has no authority to stop me. If I buy a copy, scan it into my computer, and email PDFs of it to all my friends, I am making copies, and to do so legally I need permission from O'Reilly.
Sure, but the GPL gives permission to make those copies, but only if you agree to the GPL's restrictions on distribution.
Red Hat never had the right to copy and distribute Linux without sources.
Red Hat had the right to distribute Linux without sources, not to copy Linux. Once they copied it, they gave up their right to distribute Linux without sources (or a written offer).
Are you making copies? If not, copyright law has no hold over you.
Copyright law consists of more than just protections against copying. For example, Section 106(3) gives the author of Linux the exclusive right to rent Linux CDs.
GPL gives you permission to make some sorts of copies (source-included) but not others (binary-only).
Absolutely not true. I can make a binary only copy, and as long as I don't distribute it, I have not broken the law.
In the absence of the GPL, you have no right to distribute COPIES at all.
I assume you mean copies which you have made. Of course I have the right to distribute copies which were made by Red Hat.
Redhat does not have this right because they distribute copies.
Because they distribute copies which they made (and therefore must have agreed to the GPL).
False. Red Hat's reselling is not a matter of first sale. They are distributing copies of copyrighted works.
So if Red Hat makes a copy and sells it to me, I can resell it. Or if I make a copy and sell it to Red Hat, Red Hat can resell it. Or if we both make copies, and sell them to each other, we can both resell them.
Is that what you're saying? I see no legal basis for that ridiculous situation.
EULAs can not take away rights you already had under copyright law unless you agree to them.
In the absence of the GPL, Red Hat has no right at all to distribute (for example) Linus's code
First answer this. Do you agree or disagree that I have the right to distribute Red Hat CDs.
Copyright law makes it quite clear that I do have that right, and distributing Red Hat CDs is distributing Linus's binaries.
Distributing Red Hat CDs without distributing source code is a right that I have, that Red Hat does not have. Do you agree with that?
Now, assuming you do agree to that, explain to me why Red Hat does not have that right. I am asserting that it is because they gave that right up when they agreed to the GPL.
You don't have to "agree to the GPL" to be bound by its provisions when you copy GPLed software, because all the "restrictions" of the GPL are actually just the plain old ordinary restrictions of copyright law, by which you were already bound.
According to copyright law:
Red Hat has lawfully made a Red Hat CD. They are the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under the title. Are they entitled to sell that copy without distributing source?
It seems to me (IANAL) that you're not doing anything copyright can touch: you're not copying, or making a derivative work, or the like.
Exactly. That's why the GPL is an EULA just like any other. If you agree to the GPL, you give up your right to first sale. But as long as you're not doing anything other than copying the software as a necessary step in using the software, you don't have to agree to the EULA in the first place.
The only difference between Microsft and GNU in this respect is that GNU doesn't try to make you think you're forced to agree to the EULA. They explicitly tell you you don't have to.
The buyer does (for the time being) end up without sources, and this is something the spirit of the GPL intends to avoid.
And that's the problem. Because the GPL tries to restrict something which copyright law does not (distribution of binaries without source code), it can never achieve its goal without becoming an EULA.
I have the right to distribute Red Hat binaries without distributing the source. Red Hat does not have this right. I don't see any way to explain that other than by saying that Red Hat gave up that right when they agreed to the GPL.
In the absence of a license, you have no right to copy a copyrighted work.
First of all, that's simply not true. In the absence of a license, you have limited rights to copy a copyrighted work. But I never said anything about copying, anyway.
To say that the limited grant of rights under the GPL deprives you of anything, or requires you to "give up" other rights, is a vicious lie.
Fact: When I buy a Red Hat CD from Red Hat Software, I have the right to sell that CD to someone else without giving them source code. Fact: Red Hat does not have the right to sell that CD to someone else without giving them source code. Why? Because Red Hat gave up the right to first sale when they agreed to the GPL. Red Hat was deprived of it's right to distribute CDs without distributing source.
Unlike typical EULAs, the GPL only grants rights, it does not take any away.
Just like most EULAs, the GPL grants rights provided that you give up others.
Specifically, if I download 200 copies (for free), can I give away or sell 200 copies without being bound by the GPL under first sale?
Only if you sell the actual media to which the copies are downloaded (sell the hard drive, or download directly to CD-R). Otherwise, you're making copies, and need to agree to the GPL.
If I buy a book of prints from you, I have the right to tear the pages out of the binding, frame the individual pages, and to sell them for less than you charge for individual prints.
It's funny you should mention that. In Mirage Editions v. A.R.T. Co., the defendant was found guilty of copyright infringement for doing exactly that.
The GPL does not govern use, only distribution of copies.
The GPL attempts to restrict first sale rights, by requiring that I distribute source whenever I distribute binaries.
Posts pointing out flaws in the articles and making fun of the authors are about all that's worth reading slashdot for any more.
The advantage is that I no longer have to have a white list in the first place, because the mail machine can simply check the full MD5.
The disadvantage is that now my "password" has to be put in plain text on my mail machine... Hmm, I guess it's worth it.
I create a new alias that bounces or /dev/null's email coming into that account.
I've been doing this for a while (actually, I usually forward the spam back to the abuse address of the person who leaked the address), unfortunately, I've run into two problems:
First of all, I have a somewhat popular domain name, and used to get lots of spam from people who lie about their email address and just put in blahblahblah@inbox.org. So to fix that I had to create a white-list rather than a black-list.
The second problem is really a result of the fix to the first. I can't simply use ebay@inbox.org, etc, because that's too easy to guess (security through obscurity), so I have to make something up. Unfortunately, I can't really remember the made up names, and I don't always have access to inbox.org to set up the white list. So instead I have an MD5 scheme. Take the name of the site, a number (incremented whenever I want to change the email address), and a special "password". Put them together in a certain order, and MD5 it (http://pajhome.org.uk/crypt/md5/ is available on any computer with javascript). So for slashdot, my current email address is 4e9fd9f4624c02685096769364a81d95@inbox.org (which I have to change since I'm now getting spam every couple days to this address). I keep the numbers (and actually the usernames) in a list on a certain publically accessible web page (javascript DES protected of course). So wherever I am as long as I have javascript access, I never forget the information I put in.
I just figured a new addition though. Put the domain name and the number in the beginning of the email address. So this email address would be slashdot14e9fd9f4624c02685096769364a81d95@inbox.or g (you don't need a separator since the MD5 is a fixed size?). The advantage is that I no longer have to have a white list in the first place, because the mail machine can simply check the full MD5.
Good point. *sound of bubble bursting*
If they handed you the private key, they have a copy of it themselves.
Obviously in theory they would destroy any copies of the keys. It would take quite a conspiracy at many levels to keep a repository of all the keys and not let the public know. That being said, it is still possible, so...
If you use that key and it becomes associated with you, then they can use that key and claim you used it.
Maybe against strangers, but my friends and family are going to believe me before they'll believe some cryptographic sequence (and apparently your paranoid friends will as well). As for strangers, I believe that the government already has the power to tell lies about me if they really want to. They could easily fabricate an audio recording, and possibly even a video recording. That's going to convince the public a lot more than some possibly cracked, possibly stolen, possibly subverted prime number.
The reason they wouldn't do this very often (if at all) is because every time they do it, they blow their cover, and more people know that they are secretly keeping keys. Of course all of those people who discover that information and can't be intimidated must be either killed or made into a lunatic in the eyes of the public, and there's only so many people you can kill or make into a lunatic without getting caught. So as long as you only use the keys for low-profile things (and even then perhaps only with people you can't establish a secure channel with), the government's not going to bother blowing its cover.
In my particular example, to eliminate spam, the signature is merely used in the first correspondence between complete strangers. That email might really be from Joe Schmoe from Topeka, KS, it might be Joe's sister, who stole the CD, or it might really be from the government, but I don't really care, because I have about the same level of trust for all three of those people. What I can do is check if the key is in a list of known spammers, and decide whether I want to bother opening it based on that. Unless the government is willing to blow its cover to send me spam, it makes no sense for them to steal anyone's private key.