Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Math Your Rights Online

Own Your Own 128-Bit Integer 477

Posted by kdawson
from the anyone-can-play dept.
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!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Own Your Own 128-Bit Integer

Comments Filter:
  • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:34PM (#19044697)
    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.
    • Eat it! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Corpuscavernosa (996139) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:36PM (#19044735)
      5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA

      Ha! You'll never catch me coppahs!

      • Re:Eat it! (Score:5, Funny)

        by nattt (568106) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:51PM (#19044973)
        50 AE 9B C2 10 05 0E 52 EB EA 82 B8 FB E7 30 6A

        Don't you just love it!
      • Re:Eat it! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:59PM (#19045111)
        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
      • Re:Eat it! (Score:5, Funny)

        by nbritton (823086) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @06:13PM (#19045313)
        Give that I've run this script on a quantum computer, all your base are belong to me!

        Please send royalty payments to:
        128 Infinite Alley.
        Fort Meade, MD 20755

        Thanks!

    • by Blue Stone (582566) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:39PM (#19044783) Homepage Journal
      Personally, I thought it'd be pretty neat to encrypt something using the text of a DMCA takedown notice as a key.
      • Why wouldn't you just use the text of the DMCA itself as the key? Then the government can't publish it!

        Pasting the text of this page [loc.gov] into a word processor, I learn that it is 177,926 characters long, with spaces. That's a 1,423,408-bit key.

        Better get started.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cgenman (325138)
          Why encrypt? US courts ruled in the Adobe case that Rot13 was a form of copy protection. Just do a diff between the "protected" text and the DMCA, and you're all set.

          • by CrazedWalrus (901897) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @09:23PM (#19047131) Journal

            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.
            • 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!
              • Isn't Rot13 enough? (Score:5, Interesting)

                by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Wednesday May 09, 2007 @06:19AM (#19049871) Journal
                Actually, let's say it's not rot13, but rather, rot128 -- that is, every byte xor'd against 0x80. (I think, I'm a little fuzzy on binary and hex now.) That should make it nice and universal, symmetric, and something easy enough for everyone to know.

                For safety's sake, the following should be done on an encrypted partition, and you should still shred the files afterwards.

                Go take your favorite movie (DVD is easy, but high def if you can), rip it -- doesn't matter much how, raw bits would be especially insulting, but re-encode if you like. Take your shiny new DVD rip, add a note saying "Enjoy! And if anyone from the MPAA is reading, HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR DMCA NOW, YOU CUNTS? IT'S ILLEGAL TO READ THIS, I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT!!"

                Zip/rar it all up, so it's one file, to make it simple, and run that one file through rot0x80. Save the shiny new crypted file on your hard drive somewhere, maybe give it a .rot13 extension -- so you're not really revealing your key, but everyone knows what you mean -- and distribute it via P2P.

                Now, if everyone takes equal care when playing the movie -- and I imagine we could add rot0x80 support to mplayer/vlc, if you only did it on the media file itself -- then while I am not a laywer, I don't see how they could legally get any kind of conviction against you. Simply don't put the "key" in the players, and require the person to input it every time they play -- then, you can claim you didn't know (since the file was legal to redistribute, just not legal to open), and if they accuse you of piracy, you can immediately turn it around and accuse them of DMCA violations.

                Not really an original idea, mind you. I can't point to the person who first used it to encrypt The Number, thus making it illegal for the MPAA to stop its spread. But the point here is, legally, I don't see a way out of this unless they subpeona (which is why all the disk encryption), and you can get around that easily enough -- simply use a temporary partition/filesystem, and throw away the key when you're done with that particular disc. In fact, leave the machine on and generate a random number, so you can truthfully say that you never did know the key, meaning they have absolutely no evidence you did something wrong, except the glaringly obvious bit that they're not allowed to use.
            • by Cheapy (809643) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @11:38PM (#19048095)
              You know, since "Please cease and desist immediately" was the last thing in your post, it's kinda hard not to follow those orders.
    • by bakaorg (870848) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:59PM (#19045095) Homepage
      I got one of these yesterday, but really, who has time to remember such long numbers. However, I know that it had a "D2" in it, so I figure anytime I see a number which contains this unique fingerprint, I'll assume it is my number. Fortunately, no-one has violated my rights by posting a number with "D2" in it as a comment to this article yet. You all are warned!
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Sarisar (842030)
        I used to live next door to a lady who was called Dee. Oddly enough, her mother was called Dee too!

        HAH! I'd like to see you search and find that text! Mwahahahahaha!

        Wait... does parent get a reply for this post? Oh shit.

        ctrl+a
        delete

        There, fixed it for me!
      • by StarvingSE (875139) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @07:09PM (#19045973)
        Sorry, this guy [answers.com] has prior art.... better luck next time.

        Oh, and don't try C3 either, that's taken too.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by vagabond_gr (762469)
          Sorry, this guy has prior art.... better luck next time.

          Yes, but his copyright was registered a long time ago so it has expired. Let alone the fact that it was in a galaxy far, far away so earth law do not apply. However he could sue under the trade federation law.
    • by eWarz (610883) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @06:02PM (#19045149) Homepage
      Actually parent was funny, but he brought up an interesting point. How far can things go when a simple number can be made illegal under the DMCA? If i use a sequence of numbers for encryption and then those numbers show up on the lottery, is the lottery liable for a DMCA violation? Maybe someone should intentionally 'abuse' this system to force the DMCA to be corrected.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Zadaz (950521)
        If the lottery commission is in violation, then you have trouble since they might well never publish your winning numbers.

        On the other hand I think you'd be able to successfully sue any other winners who shared the jackpot with you for their share since they used the winning lottery numbers without your permission.

        In fact I suspect, under DMCA, you could (legitimately) sue lottery players for winnings even if you didn't play, but merely if you had a previous claim on the numbers.
    • by YodaYid (1049908) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @06:12PM (#19045301) Homepage
      That one should pay off pretty quickly :-)
    • by joe_bruin (266648) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @06:17PM (#19045375) Homepage Journal
      hex("natalie portman") = 6e 61 74 61 6c 69 65 20 70 6f 72 74 6d 61 6e 00
      Now she's mine! Those of you who invoke hot grits will be hearing from my lawyer.
    • by mcrbids (148650) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @08:55PM (#19046891) Journal

      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 //
      • by sabre86 (730704) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @09:27PM (#19047157)

        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
      • by GoofyBoy (44399) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @10:13PM (#19047547) Journal
        >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.

        >However, I could whack YOU with the racket, and suddenly its role changes from "sporting equipment" to "deadly weapon".

        You don't charge mystery writers for murder just because they show in detail how to do so.
        You don't charge news reporters with breaking-and-entering because they communicate to the public how breaking-and-entering was performed.
        You don't censor history books because they outline how to commit acts of genocide.
        • by mcrbids (148650) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @11:49PM (#19048147) Journal

          You don't charge mystery writers for murder just because they show in detail how to do so.
          You don't charge news reporters with breaking-and-entering because they communicate to the public how breaking-and-entering was performed.
          You don't censor history books because they outline how to commit acts of genocide.
          In none of these cases is talking about it a crime. It's also not a crime to talk about releasing the decryption key. But releasing the encryption key IS illegal under current law.

          I'm not arguing that it SHOULD be illegal, only that it is. Don't confuse "legal" with "right". Lots of things are legal that are unethical, and lots of things are ethical but illegal. But let's spend our time discussing reality instead of some contrived misunderstanding, OK?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kripkenstein (913150)

        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.

        Absolutely wrong. Context is not important at all here. According to what you say, I can post the DeCSS code, so long as I don't say what it is? (DeCSS and the AACS key are both treated the same under the DMCA's n

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wan-fu (746576)

      Google seriously overestimates the number of results it returns.

      For example, on page 1:
      Results 1 - 10 of about 417,000 for 5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA

      But clicking to the end:
      Results 471 - 473 of 473 for 5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA

      This isn't as obvious in other queries when the engine won't let you go past 1000 results, but in queries such as this, it's very telling.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Here is my number... I wonder if its also an AACS key by coincidence :)
  • ok then (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:36PM (#19044733)
    I'll see your F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663C088 and raise you a F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663D184
  • by unity100 (970058) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:38PM (#19044777) Homepage Journal
    "So F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663C088 is truly mine now, and you can pry it out of my cold, dead fingers!"

    sooooooooo, it has come to this !!!!!
    • by dattaway (3088)
      I should go for the Powerball lottery too. What are the chances the key will turn out to be 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0?

      One in 13256278887989457651018865901401704640? Who's infringing who?
    • "You can have my (F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663C088), when you pry it from my cold dead fingers."
      "Your proposal is acceptable."
  • So I wonder... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DaveWick79 (939388)
    If I use your number (F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663C088) in this reply, I guess slashdot will have to remove my comment if you file a complaint with the DMCA. Go ahead and try it, I'd like to see what happens with my posting of your number F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663C088. There I said it again! Ha!
  • Why stop there (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HaeMaker (221642) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:42PM (#19044817) Homepage
    Why not create a system where ANY 128bit number can decrypt the haiku. Then you can go after anyone distributing any 128bit number. Say, like using IPv6.
    • by Kircle (564389)
      Why not create a system where ANY 128bit number can decrypt the haiku.

      Then it won't be called encryption. Duh :-)
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by HaeMaker (221642)
        There have been DMCA takedown notices for XOR protection schemes, and even changing one bit [slashdot.org], which is simpler than my scheme. Even ROT13 is more complex.

        DMCA says circumvention of protection schemes, not encryption schemes.
    • Re:Why stop there (Score:4, Insightful)

      by malsdavis (542216) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @06:09PM (#19045245)
      The DMCA never states that it is illegal to distribute any number, it states that it is illegal to distribute a number which has the sole/main/intended/implied/whatever-else purpose of breaking a copyright measure.

      If you had encrypted your haiku with any 128bit number then it would most probably be deemed that someone with a 128bit IP address was using your number by co-incidence. If however your 128-bit haiku encryption number appeared on a "how to decrypt encrypted haikus" website, then you would have a case however.
  • The answer (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:43PM (#19044847)
    I'm going to go register "42".

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

  • I am not a number! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SirBruce (679714) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:44PM (#19044869) Homepage
    I am a free man!

    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered.

    My life is my own.
  • There's no point in copyrighting these keys, they are way too many, actually there are exactly [CENSORED FOR COYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT] such keys.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:47PM (#19044919)
    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.
  • MINE (Score:5, Funny)

    by blhack (921171) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:47PM (#19044923)
    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!
    • by ozzee (612196)

      Please fork over 5 trillion dollars and your first born child.

      Trust me on this, make them keep their first born, nuthin' but trubbel, I tell ya

  • ...on ROT13!

    Here's my key: 09 S9 11 02 9Q 74 R3 5O Q8 41 56 P5 63 56 88 P0
  • 13256278887989457651018865901401704640 is mine - don't touch it - I warn ya ! Nor do you touch 718624318471594843*2^64 + 15582831591453788352 which is also mine. Mine MINE MINE.

    In fact any arithmetic expression or part thereof that evaluates to 13256278887989457651018865901401704640 is mine too !!! - oh wait ...

  • If anyone uses the number 3, I will send them a DMCA takedown notice for infringing on this encoded copyrighted work of literature.

    Dfwxdoob L fdq'w uhdoob eh erwkhuhg wr vhqg dqb wdnhgrzq qrwlfhv. Dqg lw'v xqolnhob wkdw wklv vkruw ri d zrun fdq eh frsbuljkwhg, exw li brx fdq uhdg wklv, wkhq brx'yh frpplwhg wkh dfw ri flufxpyhqwlrq dqbzdb. (F) Gdqlho I. Vplwk, 2007
  • My key... (Score:5, Funny)

    by basic0 (182925) <mmccollow AT yahoo DOT ca> on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:53PM (#19045009)
    Here's my copyrighted key:

    "Service Temporarily Unavailable
    The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later."

    I'm worried that someone will try to claim prior art though... :S
  • hex09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0

    Oh, and this seems to be slashdotted. :(
  • by Glothar (53068) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:56PM (#19045053)

    It's mine! Stay away!

    Microsoft is Good!
    NetBSD is slow!
    OpenSource licensing is for idealistic hippies!

    Hmm... Let's see now:

    1. Make inflammatory statements.
    2. ???
    3. Profit!!

    It seems like the infamous "Step 2" is "Trick slashdotters into including a DMCA DRM Circumvention Scheme in the Subject of their replies.

    Excellent...

  • Which integer? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dunbal (464142) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:57PM (#19045071)
    One of the basic properties of copyright is that if you enclose it in quotes and attribute the source, like "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0", then there's no problem. This quoted integer is the public key for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players.
  • This is my 128-bit key.
    There are many like it, but this one is MINE.
    My 128-bit key is my best friend. It is my life.
    I must master it as I must master my life.
    My 128-bit key without me is useless. Without my 128-bit key, I am useless.
    I must use my 128-bit key true.
    I must encrypt better than my enemy who is trying to pwn my network.
    I must root him before he roots me. I will...
    My 128-bit key and myself know that what counts in war is not the physical layer,
    the data link layer, nor the network layer.
    We know it
  • by gweihir (88907) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @05:59PM (#19045107)
    Practically every cryptographer will agree that as soon as your secret key is known, it is too late for damage control. The only thing you can do is change the key. Trying to suppress it is entirely futile and a singn of significant stupidity.

    At the same time, you cannot protect numbers. They do not belong to anybody.
    • Remember that any finite sequence of bytes can be encoded, uniquely, into an integer (abeit a large one). If numbers do not belong to anybody, then one can (rather easily) encode any copyrighted work as an integer and distribute it.
      • DeCSS as a number (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DrYak (748999)
        This has been done before [theregister.co.uk] with the DeCSS algorithm, for the express purpose of proving that it's stupid to restrict it's distribution as, supposedly, you can't prevent a prime number with interesting property to be published in press.

  • I used pi. All your numbers are belong to me.
  • by Detritus (11846) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @06:00PM (#19045131) Homepage

    So F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663C088 is truly mine now, and you can pry it out of my cold, dead fingers!

    Your proposal is acceptable.

  • If everybody starts taking their own 128-bit number, so that no one else can use it, what are we going to do when we run out of 128-bit numbers?

  • by Metsys (718186)
    I just got 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. I figured it's bound to turn up on someone's hard drive. My chances are now better than ever to live the American Dream of this century.
  • Let's see.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by nlitement (1098451)
    How about 1337? Damn, I'm going to be rich!
  • 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 42
    thats right suckers! I own the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Please, don't all send your checks to me at once.
  • If I run this locally on all 3.4e + 38 values, does that protect me from DMCA take-down notices when I post one of the values online?
  • All prime numbers have been taken already :-(
  • Ahh yes the inevitable techy vs non-techy argument. I say we start a war, death to all stupid people!

    Well hey let's just not stop at Civil War... let's go all out World War 3! Viva la resistance, er something.

    If you can work a scientific calculator and your VCR (DVD/DVR, car, watch, cat, etc) isn't flashing 12:00, come with me!
  • by cortana (588495) <<sam> <at> <robots.org.uk>> on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @06:36PM (#19045617) Homepage
    You can turn your own, personal 128 bits into an image here: http://robots.org.uk/itii/ [robots.org.uk]
  • Life Mirrors Art (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 26199 (577806) * on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @06:40PM (#19045653) Homepage

    I never thought there would *actually* be a campaign to use up all the GUIDs [f8d.org].

  • by sick_soul (794596) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @07:13PM (#19046003)
    fa ce ad ec ad e0 fd ec af c0 ff ee 4b ad co de

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.

Working...