Talk:AACS encryption key controversy/Archive 2

This is daft

If Google's lawyers sent letters prohibiting using "Google" as a verb, would you react the same way, remove, edit and lock down articles using it? Just because laywers say so, it does not make it right. It is a bloody number, published in major media, giving over a million google hits. It is not a trade secret, if it ever was. It is as much a secret as that the word "olympus" was the code to get patched though to Nixon in the White House. It is a "everyone knows" by now, act accordingly. 80.212.142.143 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, and by the way: 09S911029Q74R35OQ84156P5635688P0. That was NOT the key, but if you run ROT13 on it, you are using a circumvention device, as defined by the DMCA.

You did read Wikipedia:Keyspam, right? - David Gerard 00:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I did. Did you read Henry David Thoreau? 80.212.142.143 12:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Me bows in respect to the ip user. It's not often their replies are THIS good :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing that I like about Wikipedia:Keyspam is that it encourages the assumption of good faith by potentially aligning logical, intelligent people with rabid spammers. Gracenotes^T § 16:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What about 13256278887989457651018865901401704640 ? Yann 13:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

16-byte? It's 15-byte!

Hello there, guys and girls! The number is 15 byte wide, not 16 byte wide. How wide would "00 00 ab cd" be? 4 bytes? 8 bytes? And "00 00 00 ab cd"?

By the way, the number should be published on wiki, as per "wikipedia is not censored in any way", but that's a different story. Will wait for consensus on that, but I'm changing the bytenumber immediately.

-- Kirils 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope the number really is 16 bytes wide - count the number groups, not the number of dashes. --Darkstar949 00:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just a problem with the representation. One may write 911 and one may write 0911, as one may write 00911. The number is still 3 digits long. Add as many zeroes as you like. How many zeroes do YOU want to add? Who says hexdec has to be presented by an even number of digits? Who says binary has to be presented by a number of bits factored by eight? It's just the USUAL representation, but that DOES NOT make the number carry more information than it does. -- Kirils 00:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like 16 to me:

   09-f9-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-88-c0
    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

I swear that's the same length as the real key. Also, the "free speech flag" I've seen around has five stripes (RGB=>3 bytes per stripe) plus "c0", for 5*3+1=16. —Ben FrantzDale 00:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not just a problem of representation - each group of two characters (ie. 09) represents a byte of information (8 bits or a number between 0 and 256) is is counted as such regardless of what the starting character is since this is hex notation. Anyway, the following should help you understand things a bit better:

01-02-03-04-05-06-07-08-09-10-11-12-13-14-15-16

09-f9-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx

As for 911 - it depends on the context - if we are talking about character data then it would be 393131 or if it was numeric data it would be 038f. --Darkstar949 01:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the processing key is the center of the controversy. The AACS spec appears to definite it as 128-bits (16 8-bit bytes) cheers, --guyzero | talk 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of arguments for now. Thanks for the PDF link. -- Kirils 01:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why original research is forbidden, as are unverifiable or unreliable sources. But here the ignorance is rampant:

@Kirils: in hexadecimal, there are no digits, but hexes. The key has 16 hexes (the rough equivalent of digits in base16). Your math is, to put it midly, rudimentary: 0911 is not a mathematically possible digit in base10, as preceding zeroes are not used. In binary, the representation in octets has more to do with the use of binary math in computers, so in that sense you are correct binary can be represented by any quantity of binary character: however that is not the reality in math, 0 and 1 are the characters used to represent the binary relationship, and they are usually presented as a byte or 8 bits (bits are the rough equivalent of digits in base2)

@Darkstar949: thanks!

@guyzero: Thanks for the source, althought this has to be the most hilarious discussion ever in wikipedia: hexadecimal, binary, etc would have explained the number as the hexadecimal representation of a 128 bit number. However, a byte is usually 8-bits, that is its current definition...

Yes, I am grumpy... ;)--Cerejota 05:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when is 128 bits of information not 128 bits just because there are some 0's at the beginning? (hint what if there were some 1's at the beginning?) --Ray andrew 05:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean it has 32 hexes (assuming you count the leading 0). It has 16 bytes, but 32 hexes (the rough equivalent of a hexadecimal digit). We use bytes in computing for a variety of reasons, but a hexademical 'digit' is still a single character who's value can range from 0-F (16)... A byte is base-256 not base-16 Nil Einne 03:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Key seen and spoken on Amercian TV channel Current TV

Current TV does a daily news segment called Google Current that airs a few times each day. They did a story today (Friday) hosted by Conor Knighton on the leak of the key and the reaction to it, and not only did they put the key on screen, they also played a song in the background from YouTube which mentions the key down to the last letter. They also did a quick story yesterday (Thursday) about the Digg reaction, but yesterday's story blacked out the key (while still directing people to Digg to see it). The spots are not on their website, as their website focuses more on the documentary stuff, but Current TV's format means that the spots will re-air at some point over the next twelve hours or so. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

LINK! http://www.current.tv/google/GC03104 - Online version of the story on the code which mentions the code verbatim. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Added - the media reaction will be an interesting substory in itself - David Gerard 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I wonder how much time will pass until someone half-prematurely nominates this for FAC... or perhaps I'm not assuming enough good faith. Gracenotes^T § 03:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I can foresee a lot of pain if it ever does thanks to our "policy" on Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. HD-DVD is already up to 32 deleted edits. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless we allow the key into articles, which is a not-so-distant possibility, given recent developments in the real world. Gracenotes^T § 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay..

It doesn't make any sense. There's a picture that has the code poster all over it.. Do you really think that Wikipedia is the #1 source of this key anyway? Afraid of a lawsuit? ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--88.193.241.224 15:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Banality of Evil is an interesting theory, although it could probably be coupled with some temporary deficiency in the cerebral cortex. Nah, I'm joking! Kind of. Gracenotes^T § 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

New section: Impact on popular culture

From my talk page:

“ about your edits to AACS encryption key controversy. 1: isn't this information in the article already ? 2: Does it really need to be called "in popular culture" ???? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ”

Some of this information is in the article. Other information, such as tattoos, are not. I wanted it all in one place. I expect this section to grow over time. As far as the name, this or something very close is what I had in mind. "Popular culture" or "Effect on Culture" or anything similar is also fine. Davidwr 16:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I expect it to grow over time as well, and that is exactly the problem i have with Trivia / In popular culture sections. It's usually an endless list of not critically argumented information. Why not say something like "Expressions of the number" with full sentences explaining the ways in which people have expressed this number in works of art etc. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

or "symbolism" explaining how it has become a symbol of anti-DMCA, anti-DRM, pro free-speech etc. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

After the controversy dies down and the list stops growing, it can be collapsed into a sentence or two and moved to another section. By then we will know which, if any, of these items had any long-lasting importance. Maybe in a few months you or I could write something like At the height of the controversy, the digits for the key were printed on t-shirts, used in songs as well as a variety of other ways, followed by a complete list of still-valid references. Instead of t-shirts and songs, I would list the 2 or 3 most notable or long-lasting examples. For now though, I think a bullet-list is best. It's easy to read and easy to expand. I'm not sure if a discussion of symbolism belongs in this section or elsewhere. Davidwr 17:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Those sections do allow people with an easy way to add half-junk material to Wikipedia. You should have seen February 2007 North America winter storm#Schools before I turned it from a list into prose! And you might think it looks bad now... :) Now that we've added a section like this, we're taking a risk, and must be viligant. Gracenotes^T § 17:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In any controversial or current-event article, vigilance is a requirement :). I don't think we will see more than a dozen broad categories listed by the time things settle down. Who knows, maybe there won't be any additions. Note that specific songs, t-shirt designs, etc. are not listed. Davidwr 17:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget a certain website (http://www.09f9******.ws/) ;) Fuzzy 15:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Digg screenshot note

I thought I'd point out that the screenshot of the Digg website includes the 16-byte key, and that if the flag image is up for deletion, then someone might probably want to do something about this image as well. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There is another version of the same picture, Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage Screenshot before rose blog post censored.png. If the Wikipedia legal team want to force the issue, they can substitute that version instead. Davidwr 17:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The image flag looks like it's up for deletion, but let's use common sense. Does it really look like the flag image is going to get deleted? Not really.

This is also a bad analogy. I fail to see the comparison between implicitly and explicitly using the key; the latter is still under some debate (mostly from the same three or four people, who just happen to be very loud), while not many people are against the first. Gracenotes^T § 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd like to add that according to the discussion, there ALREADY is a consensus on STRONG KEEP of the flag image. Kirils 18:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The uncensored screenshot was deleted so I have re-added the censored one to the article. Will (aka Wimt) 01:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's back again. Bryan Derksen 23:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added it back, given its encyclopedic value and lack of violation of wp policy. However, I have moved it to a more appropriate section further down on the page. It does look quite ugly where it is, however, squeezed in between two other graphic/notice boxes. If someone feels strongly about moving it back to its original location on aesthetics grounds, please go ahead, I have no objection. Konekoniku 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaaand deleted again. Is there some location where this is actually being debated, or is this just reappearing and disappearing at the whim of individuals at this point? Bryan Derksen 15:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Thebainer insists it is his perogative to unilaterally delete the image without discussion. I would file a request for arbitration if I wasn't too busy in rl at the moment to deal with it. Thus I will continue to upload the image as that is in line with prevailing consensus on the issue. Konekoniku 16:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if anyone else would be willing to assist in reverting his vandalism, I would greatly appreciate it. This basically involves reuploading the photo file and summary description, and changing the link on the article page to match.Konekoniku 16:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to unilaterally delete the screenshot. It is encyclopedic and of historic value. It's legal status is unknown at present. As far as I am aware we have not received any DMCA takedown notice regarding it. Unless there is some kind of discussion and consensus to delete it, I'll go ahead and restore it. We do have processes for this sort of thing. Kaldari 18:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I mean... people are allowed to make edits to a page even if the page is protected... MrMacMan ^Talk 18:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:HD_DVD_Night_Digg_Frontpage_Screenshot_before_rose_blog_post.png has been restored (as it does not meet criteria for speedy deletion). Feel free to nominate it for deletion if you believe it should be deleted. Thanks. Kaldari 18:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I also left a note on User:Thebainer's talk page. Kaldari 18:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice the dispute was between admins and the CSD policy... er. MrMacMan ^Talk 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted yet again. Thebainer's been engaging in limited discussion over at User talk:Thebainer#HD-DVD Speedy Deletes but I've requested that he come here to talk about it instead since this is a better place to establish a consensus at. Bryan Derksen 08:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted. Please be on the lookout for further vandalism of this sort, and revert as necessary. Konekoniku 08:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Thebainer has placed the page on full protect to prevent his vandalism from being reverted. Kaldari or another admin, could you lift the protection? Many of us have tried reasoning with him (see his talk page), but to no avail. Konekoniku 09:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. I really don't like the use of admin tools to unilaterally push through a decision like this. Bryan Derksen 16:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, to clarify, I've only unprotected the image page. I didn't notice he'd also protected the article itself. I'm already late for work so I can't take the time to investigate that further right now, perhaps post on unprotection requests? Bryan Derksen 16:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And now I've just been named as an involved party in an arbitration case over this matter, so it seems perhaps inappropriate for me to unprotect this page directly now. I'll go request unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to make sure an outside opinion participates. Bryan Derksen 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Konekoniku 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User:David Gerard has unprotected the page. However, I do not believe I should revert the vandalism myself, as I have been listed as an involved party in a currently-ongoing request for arbitration on this issue. If someone else would like to correct it, however, you can find instructions for doing so here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:HD_DVD_Night_Digg_Frontpage_Screenshot_before_rose_blog_post_censored.png . Konekoniku 23:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another branch of the argument has opened up at Image talk:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage before rose blog post screenshot.png. I've suggested that it move over here as well, the various copies of this image are still rather unstable. Bryan Derksen 07:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott is now begining to constantly revert the image again. I'm in danger of violating the 3RR if I revert further, so could someone else revert the link instead? Just search for .png and replace the filename with HD_DVD_Night_Digg_Frontpage_before_rose_blog_post_screenshot.png . Konekoniku 07:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I will probably be offline for the next few hours. I'm requesting that Ned please use the talk page for discussion about the image and not revert without explanation. Discussion has been working so far IMHO. MrMacMan ^Talk 07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So precisely what was affected by the April 23 revocation?

See "History of AACS Cracking" - I've added a reference from EETimes, which is a high-quality journalistic source, implying that some standalone players may be affected! Is this the case? I don't understand the keys-for-keys-for-keys inner structure of AACS - I'm asking someone who does to explain, hopefully with good references for mere mortals to check, just what was revoked, how, and just what the anticipated effects would be - David Gerard 18:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to add the actual link to your cite web ref :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Secondly. The world is a bit in the unknown on this one. Officially and without a doubt at least the devicekeys of WinDVD and PowerDVD are revoked (http://www.aacsla.com/home). Beyond that nothing is sure. It is doubtful the Xbox 360 device key has been revoked, though a Microsoft update to better "protect" the information is probably due (to obfuscate volumeID keys and stuff). The processing key (which is what we are talking about) might or might not be affected by 23 april revocation. As it does not need customers to update their players (from what i can tell from the doom9 explenation), they may have chosen not to disclose this information. doom9 forum members have already mentioned that they have ordered new discs to investigate what has and has not changed. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Link added! (ahem) - David Gerard 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No hardware players were affected by the revocation, just software players. I don't see how you got that impression from the article. --Ray andrew 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The boxes-on-shelves bit. Rereading, that's referring to PCs, yes - David Gerard 08:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

See my thread here Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy#any_keys_actually_revoked.3FPatcat88 03:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Discuss removal of first two bytes of key from article text

The edit 22:52, 5 May 2007 Prodego removed 09 F9 .... I think it should be restored. In a few years, it will be important to know just which key we are talking about. The first few bytes are enough information without being too much information. Unless someone provides a good reason not to, I'll revert the edit in a day or so. davidwr 22:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's still mentioned further down in the article, do a text search for "09 F9". Bryan Derksen 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I missed that one :) This snippet of the key doesn't provide any useful info. While the whole key would be relevant to the article, we can't use it, and a section of the much larger whole doesn't help readers at all. Prodego ^talk 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-added it because it is relevant and so belongs in the intro. I agree that it's lame to not include the whole key, but including the whole key seems to be against consensus at the moment. In lieu of the full key, at least providing the "name" of it, "09 f9" lets people know what we are talking about. (The subversive in me considered slowly adding one hex digit at a time to it over the course of the week, but that didn't seem appropriate.) —Ben FrantzDale 23:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The subversive in me says different editors should add digits at random intervals, so the whole thing is up by the end of the month. Barring that, just 09F9-ify your signature. davidwr ^09f9 03:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That really isn't appropriate, so I nominated the image talk page for deletion. The use of the talk page is the main problem, but the whole thing is a bit... Anyway, have you ever tried to save the whole code on a wiki page? If not, try. Prodego ^talk 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's against consensus. If the key were de-blocked, I suspect you would see the key reappear and stay. davidwr ^09f9 04:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I put it in there because I'm seeing it used as a quick shorthand for the key in real life. I called it the "09 F9" key later in the text in reference to naming it such in the intro, so the intro text can hardly be called "redundant" with the mention later on. That makes no sense at all - David Gerard 23:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW "09F9", is used in the name of {{09F9-notice}}, used above this very talk page. Anyone who wants to delete it can take up with User:Leki :P--Cerejota 01:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't have a problem with "09 F9" (though I wonder how much will be allowed), I just don't think it is adding anything to the article as used. David Gerard says it is being reported on this way, which means it should probably be used in some way, but I don't think we should use it as a stand in for the whole thing. Prodego ^talk 01:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what would be a good alternative stand-in for this particular number, then? I think 09 F9 is reasonable shorthand, the EFF used it so most people familiar with the subject will easily recognize what's being talked about. Even if the full key could be put in Wikipedia right now I think it'd still be good to use an abbreviation most of the time simply for convenience. Bryan Derksen 02:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Just as in US patent litigation, the patent numbers are conventionally referred to by the last three digits, e.g. "in their violation of the '666 patent" - David Gerard 08:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I do advocate the inclusion of the key for encyclopedic precision. However, 09 F9 seems like a perfectly good compromise for now, pending, well, the future. Gracenotes^T § 16:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for related article: Freedom Flag

I'm kind of busy at the moment. Can someone put together an article on the Freedom Flag aka Free Speech Flag aka Intellectual Freedom Flag? References: free speech flag by free speech flag by John Marcotte, Freedom Flag image on Wikipedia, Google search for "Free Speech Flag" and "09 f9" davidwr ^09f9 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the flag has any meaning outside of the current context, i.e. it would be just merged back here. It's purely a "gag" to give out the code in graphic format. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Maybe revisit the issue if the flag winds up being used in relation to other free-speech-type subject areas in the future, that would show it's got "legs". Bryan Derksen 04:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It did take me a moment to realize that User:Davidwr's sig is... um... well the colors... man I've been seeing that number alot lately.... lol -- Kendrick7^talk 07:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made Free Speech Flag a redirect to this article for now. As noted, we can break it out as a subarticle if it gets legs - David Gerard 08:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have requested that this page is unprotected.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection There is no vandalism, there is no edit war. Semi-Protection in the absence of vandalism purely acts to require registration to edit, which is in and of itself a violation of wikipedia policy. Admin Netsnipe has protected this page solely to enforce his Wikilawyering as to whether the key can or can not be published. This has even resulted in (failed) admin abuse complaints. This page is not subject to either edit wars or vandalism. User:Netsnipe is simply imposing his point of view of the DMCA on this page, despite contrary opinions from others including I quote a response from Jimbo Wales , To my knowledge, the foundation has not been served with a cease-and-desist order, and neither has the Foundation expressed any opinion on this matter. Speaking in my individual capacity in my traditional role in Wikipedia, I am simply advising everyone to stay relaxed and focussed on the big picture goals of Wikipedia, and understand that people who disagree with you on this point are also human beings who love freedom of information.--Jimbo Wales 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 71.204.133.75 06:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments to abovelinked page please - David Gerard 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance. CMummert · talk 14:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

I've changed the title from "History" to "Timeline", 'cos it is. I've added a short para on the complicated nature of AACS (please review for technical handwaving) and attempted to make the timeline text clearer. Should it be in bulleted form? It'd be less unreadable. Needs some serious prose massage - David Gerard 08:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Illegal number?

Hello,

This is really becoming silly. FYI, the number is available in this revision [1]. So unless we also removed this and all old versions which have it, we are back to square one. Yann 13:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's possible to oversight it without violating the GFDL. The law should take precedence over the GFDL, but even application of the former is a bit murky at this point. What's becoming silly? Gracenotes^T § 16:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

BBC, GG

http://www.dslinux.org/blogs/pepsiman/?p=81 --88.193.241.224 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's involvement in the controversy

As it stands, the information is limited and non-neutral: it gives the impression of Wikipedia censoring by saying it it embroiled in the controversy, but not describing how, only showing two facts.It also fails to cite sources, so it is original research. Wikipedia, as we all know, its not a reliable source.

We need to rework this to show:

1) Vandalism and spam of the key in contravention of accepted rules in Wikipedia.

2) Admins who didn't remain civil and didn't assume good faith during the Digg Riot and other "censorship" behaviors by the community. (We alreay talk about the protective lock down and the spam filter).

3) Efforts by the community such as WP:KEYSPAM and the {{09F9-notice}} template, the speedy keep of the AfD on the "Free Speech Flag" and other such "anti-censorship" behaviors by the community.

4) The legal position, including the requirements of the GFDL.

5) Jimbo's comment on his talk page.

I believe we as editors have a responsibility to both come clean with our mistakes and to celebrate an point out our achievements. We must also expose the way we work so others can understand it. Only then does a fair and neutral appreciation of our involvement in the controversy would emerge.

Perhaps we need time for this, but I think that we are losing exposure by waiting to rewrite a frankly unflattering and incomplete section on our involvement in the controversy.

--Cerejota 21:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the current wording is misleading. The current wording makes it sound like the key was added to hundreds of articles and a constructive manner, when infact most of the edits were just plain spam as the key was irrelevant to the article in question. --Ray andrew 22:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if Wikipedia is even significant here. We suffered a barrage of spam and were mentioned in passing in some press, but I'm really not sure that rates a paragraph. Uncyclopedia has suffered the same, and I'm pretty sure quite a lot of wikis have - David Gerard 00:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I reread the NYT thing. "pages, blogs and wikis" is clumsy, but about in proportion with what's in the article - David Gerard 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia may have suffered the same, but that hasn't been noted. Wikipedia was specifically pointed out in a couple of places, some of which are reliable/non-trivial. Gracenotes^T § 02:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that we can afford a half-anecdotal mention of Wikipedia, given that there are sources, so why not? If the section becomes too large, we'll trim it down, but there's no reason to worry about having too much information, especially if there are sources. A single fact doesn't need multiple citations: it should only need one, although more would be good as well, I think. 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I belive we would be rather self-serving if we didn't devote a section of this article to our response, involvement, position, and debates around this issue. I believe we have a responsibility to our readers, and owe it to them, to make our positions and actions known. That we are writting a social encyclopedia means we will be affected by what happens in our ecosystem. And I cannot think of a better place to expose what happens and continues to happen in wikipedia as a result of this controversy than this very page.

I strongly disagree with your view that Wikipedia's participation was trivial: it is in fact -as one of the major user-generated content websites out there- a central and key player in this controversy. While it might take time to cool down enough to get a great way of showing this involvement, I do believe we can start to piece together a history now.

I already put forth some points I believe we should cover.

I am open to hear why we shouldn't, but I can assure you that claiming that Wikipedia is not a significant part of this controversy is not a very convincing argument. Wikipedians and wikipedia might not have wanted to be dragged into it, but we were and we are part of it: it is the very nature of our chosen method of editing. --Cerejota 03:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned Wikipedia by name. The press coverage hardly does more than mention Wikipedia by name either. BTW, I've had no press calls about it, and I don't think anyone else on the press lists has either. It's big news internally, but in the wider story I suspect we're a footnote at best - David Gerard 12:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agreed with Cerejota's points and reasoning. Wikipedia's cited response (locking, deleting, etc) to the being "spammed" with the number is now no longer stated in the article. --guyzero | talk 16:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So make it a sentence - Wikipedia is not much more of a significant target of the distributed spam than Slashdot, etc - David Gerard 07:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Typing 'AACS Key 09 F9' into a search engine is plenty good enough to pull the rest of it up, so there's just no point in trying to drag Wikipedia into the poop-storm.

Sort of pointless to try to 'protect' the key now that it's out, too. Like the original DVD key before it, the Genie's out, so live with it. Some people just don't understand that standard encryption is by its very nature broken encryption. Equally broken is your wireless router's security, WEP, WPA, and whatever alphabet soup they assign to the next standard will be equally broken and pointless. Soon all of this 'state of the art' 128 bit stuff we rely on will be as laughable as the 56 bit stuff. Actually, it probably already is.70.7.123.147 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And these comments are relevant to this section how? This is not a soapbox!--Cerejota 12:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Popularity waning...

Here is one case where Kansas State University staff member has since removed a proud banner: google cache vs current. John Vandenberg 05:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to speculate that his hand was forced by the university administration. Relevance to this article though? 0. --Rodzilla (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He might have also not wanted thing up for pure aesthetic reasons, but... that would be original research, wouldn't it be? If a reliable source does report this as a case of University-enforced change, then it is highly relevant. While I do think article quality would suffer if we list the potential hundreds or even thousands of censored pages, I do think it is relevant to place sources and have statements regarding this. However, we must remember to keep things neutral: in this case one person's censorship is another's property enforcement--Cerejota 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reliable sources at all on this matter, nor do I currently see a reason for it being included in the article. --Rodzilla (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not suggesting it as content that needed to be added to the article right now, but it is an aspect that will need to be covered in due course. John Vandenberg 22:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias

The current Spanish language Wikipedia contains the full number: es:Controversia por la clave cifrado AACS. They have said our "policy" (or general reluctance to add it at this time) has no bearing on them. Is the current reasoning to not display the full number a matter of legality, or a matter of encyclopedic tone, or just a wait-and-see? (Side note: I happen to think the "starting 09 F9"-type of nomenclature is not very encyclopedic in tone at all.) Should each Wikipedia be establishing their own consensus on whether or not to display the fumber in full? Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not encyclopedic to post long code numbers into the article but censoring the picture involving discussion about the code is just stupid. 80.222.50.237 16:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If their server are in Spain then the DMCA doesn't apply to them. Nothing a little extraordinary rendition can't fix though! -- Kendrick7^talk 18:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The es:wp servers are in Florida with the rest of the servers - David Gerard 07:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So no response to my actual question (since the servers are not in Spain)? David Gerard? Netsnipe? --Ali'i 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have stated numerous times that the English Wikipedia has no such "policy" or general consensus against posting the number (see the "Should the number be posted" section above, and many others, including admins, have been forced to agree with this statement. I fully agree with the user above that censoring the picture is retarded, and moreover believe that the number itself is a key part of the article (after all, it's at the center of this whole controversy). I would gladly forgive you, however, if you soon saw the error of your ways. Konekoniku 22:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'm of the mind to wait and see, per WP:TIND. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh.. the English Wikipedia has mirrors in other countries than the US. --88.193.241.224 23:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And? I don't know, it's not as if the cat's not out of the bag -- Kendrick7^talk 00:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC) As I Was Going to St Ives...

Answer: the Foundation hasn't told es:wp not to, so there it stays for now. I'd still say hold off adding it here until the spam goes away - no, it still hasn't gone away in other places - David Gerard 07:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, though, I don't believe the Foundation has told en:wp not to either. Konekoniku 07:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The foundation has said nothing, Jimbo has said that we should keep a cool head and assume good faith. 'The Foundation has no opinion regarding this matter at this time' User_talk:Bastique#HD_DVD, 'To my knowledge, the foundation has not been served with a cease-and-desist order, and neither has the Foundation expressed any opinion on this matter.' Jimbo Wales. Do i think that there should have been an official statement? Who am i to say. MrMacMan ^Talk 08:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And when I suggest holding off, I mean on the text key - the Digg image is uncensored. Remember how, when Ed Felten countersued the RIAA for a court ruling on whether or not discussion was illegal, the RIAA backpedaled furiously to avoid a ruling? In any case, the Foundation knows damn well the image is here and the text is on es:wp, and still no DMCA notice has been received. There's no hurry. - David Gerard 10:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Very true. At the same time, however, waiting excessively long may not be warranted, given the centrality of the number to the topic of this article, the lack of policy prohibiting it, and the general consensus supporting its inclusion in the article. Konekoniku 11:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

True, no real hurry. But no reason to delay unnecessarily either. It was definitely reasonable to hold off on inclusion until the board was made aware, and had time to comment on it-- or at least choose not to comment on it. But I think delaying too much longer doesn't buy us much. It seems like we're getting to the point we should progress "resolve a content dispute" mode, rather than "prohibit inclusion at all costs" mode. --Alecmconroy 07:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

-also note the current state: the article does not have the number but have images that have them and cites sources for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.53.61.127 (talk • contribs). (moved comment MrMacMan ^Talk 21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Own your own 128-bit number

An original work of art, whose white and black spaces could be interpreted as the 0s and 1s of a binary number. Would the artwork be illegal if that number were illegal?

Someone made a clever little webpage[2] that generates a random 128-bit key and then encrypts a copyrighted haiku using that key. Distribution of that key (which it gives you) would then be illegal under the DMCA as it's a copyright circumvention device (assuming that that logic holds up and that the HD DVD key is illegal). I certainly thing this belongs in the article, but I have no idea where. Anyone feel like taking a stab at it? --Rodzilla (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If the number were calligraphed or otherwise embedded in a work of art, copyrighted by the artist, would the artwork be illegal? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: We should publish it.

Here's why.

1. The only lawyers or legal opinions that matter are the board lawyers. It's their duty to protect Wikipedia from liability by making legal decisions-- and it is their duty alone. The rest of us should enforce their decisions and apply their opinions to specific articles, but never stray into making legal decisions ourselves. I am not a lawyer, you are not a lawyer, and even if we were lawyers, we're not Wikipedia's lawyer. The board's lawyers at the only lawyers involved.
2. The board lawyers are aware of the issue. We know they are aware of this issue. Their position is that there is no legal problem posed by the illegal number that they want to make the community aware of at this time.
3. This means that as of this moment, there is no legal-related reason for us not to publish the number.
4. In the absence of any compelling legal reason (from the board and its lawyers), we should treat this article the way we would treat any other article. Whatever the standard practice is regarding notable numbers, that's what we should do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- unless we are forbidden by law to do something, the only question that matter is this one: would Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia with it or without it?
5. The number 09 F9 is now sufficiently notable that it merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. We regularly publish long numbers that have achieved any kind of notability. See List of numbers for just some of the many more examples of Wikipedia listing notable numbers-- we even publish a 54 digit number without batting an eye-- and I don't think there have been any news stories devoted to that number or any t-shirts or songs about it.
6. The number is notable. An encyclopedia that contains it is more useful than one that doesn't contain it. There's no legal opinion that says we can't publish it.

Therefore, let's publish it. --Alecmconroy 07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The general consensus indeed is to publish it; see "Should the number be listed" above. However, the consensus also calls for another 12–36 hours before including it into the article, in order to allow things to settle down further. After that time it will be added to the article. Konekoniku 08:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I will post the key on May 10th

As per the discussions above (should the number be listed, summary of arguments on this issue, US press containing the actual key, Key seen and spoken on American TV channel Current TV, and My two cents: we should publish it) I will be publishing the key in full in the article on May 10th at approximately 2:00 AM EDT. This will have allowed more than 48 hours for comments since I originally stated I would be posting the full key within 48 hours, barring rational arguments against posting it. I figured I should state this in a new section as everything is jumbled around on this page. --Rodzilla (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC) The original idea was to allow for a change in consensus (which was to post the key) to have 48 hours to surface. However, due to the current arbitration please do not add the key until the arbitration has reached a conclusion. --Rodzilla (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't like it because it is clunky to just insert into the middle of an encyclopedia article. Also, for the vast majority of people, the numbers have no meaning (other than the "sticking it to the man" point), and the full number adds nothing to their practical knowledge. The full explanation/number would work better in a macropedia on encryption (which Wikipedia is not). The number (or at least the idea of the number) is notable, and there isn't a real, pressing legal need not to post it. However, the question (as stated above) is "does it make the encyclopedia better?" In my opinion, inserting a hex-string in the middle of an article clutters up and muddies the brilliant prose of an article. There is also no need to insert the number. As I said, for the mass majority of people, the numbers mean nothing. But it seems I am in the waning minority, so do as you feel. I just thought I'd register my opinion on the matter. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider this for a moment: we have an entire article talking about a number, but we never say what the number is. This is an encyclopedia, and as such, should contain encyclopedic information. I fail to see how we can claim to have an encyclopedic article on this number without ever saying what the number is. "Sticking it to the man" has nothing to do with this, including all of the facts, however, does. Consider Pi or e. Both of those articles include the number they're referring to. Sure, including a string of numbers may not make an english sentence flow as well as it could by just saying "the number," but leaving relevant, valuable, and notable information (and indeed the number that the entire article revolves around is notable) out of an encyclopedia simply because numbers are not brilliant prose is irrational. --Rodzilla (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Except you miss the key point that this article is not about the number. It is about the controversy surrounding the number. Pi and e have the number because, well, duh. This case is not quite so clear-cut. --Ali'i 19:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, this article isn't even about the "controversy surrounding the number", it's about the controversy surrounding what this number represents... the key to crack HD DVDs and Blu Ray discs. The number itself (and again, this is my opinion, ymmv) is irrelevant. The whole controversy about being able to crack HD DVDs and how Diggers "revolted" against the evil MPAA, etc., can be fully explained without saying, "oh, by the way, the number used to crack the HD DVDs is...". Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include the number to test the waters. If the owners of the number make a fuss, then we can apologize and have a rule of thumb to go by the next time an illegal number becomes notable. If we decide not to include this number now we've made an a priori policy to never post an illegal number ever in the future without facing more dire consequences. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well this whole discussion is rather moot given that the article is currently fully protected. However, I disagree that whatever we do now will create any kind of precedent. Potential legal issues should always be considered on a case by case basis and being cautious is always sensible. In this case, I agree that it almost certainly isn't a legal concern anymore, though I would tend to agree with Ali'i that including the entire number would not improve this article on the controversy surrounding it. After all, it's already very clear what number this article refers to. Just because we can doesn't necessarily mean we should. Clearly I'm not going to edit war over it though and if my opinion is in the minority I am willing to go with the consensus. Will (aka Wimt) 20:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The protection will be lifted soon enough – almost certainly by May 10th. Konekoniku 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

it's already very clear what number this article refers to. I don't think that's at all true. Someone reading this in 100 years won't have any idea. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I doubt there will be another 09 F9 even then so we wouldn't need the whole thing. Regardless though, this article isn't intended to be written for people to be viewing it in a hundred years; it is intended for reading now. That's the joy of a wiki over a book. Will (aka Wimt) 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There aren't that many notable G. H. W. B.'s in the world either, that's hardly an excuse to start writing articles in shorthand. I'm always conscious of what readers both today and in 100 years will find useful (a la WP:PARIS). You are confusing us with wikinews. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course there will be another, whenever a new technology is released that can be cracked, you still need to refer to the actual subject of an article. By that line of argument we should delete everything that's not a current event article, since we can read it in a book instead of a wiki? Also slightly reapeating myself but; you can't write an article without saying what the subject is. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 20:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah but my argument is that you don't need to write the entire number to make it perfectly clear what the actual subject of the article is. I mean at what point do you draw the line. If it was 128 bytes would will still include the whole of it? As I say, "09 F9" leaves people in no doubt as to what is being referred to. Will (aka Wimt) 21:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And you seem to misunderstand what I mean by saying this is a wiki not a book. My point is that our articles don't need to be written so that they will be perfectly clear in 100 years' time. They can be updated at any time in the future, unlike a version of a book. Will (aka Wimt) 21:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think length should even be a restriction. We still have an article entitled Lopado...pterygon which includes the full 183-character name of some fictional dish mentioned in some ancient Greek play – so long that it had to be hyphenated to avoid creating a horizontal scrollbar on the page. The 09 F9 number is arguably of much more encylopedic value than the name of some fictional dish mentioned in some ancient Greek play. Konekoniku 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

True, there is no upper limit. However there is a difference between that and this. Lopado...pterygon is an article specifically about that particular dish whereas this is an article about the controversy surrounding the use of a particular number. Many of the sources that are cited in this article don't find it necessary to quote the whole number (those that do are in the minority) so I don't agree with the view that the whole number is an absolute necessity to this article. Will (aka Wimt) 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the general view is that the whole number is an absolute necessity to the article, but rather that the whole number is of encyclopedic value to the article. Konekoniku 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed but I do still feel (based on my previous comments) that it doesn't have a huge amount of encyclopedic value. Clearly if this article was about the number itself, then there would be a very strong argument for including the whole thing. However, this article is merely discussing the controversy that it has caused. The exact hex code of the number isn't required to describe this controversy, nor in fact would it make description of the controversy any clearer. I am very aware that my view is in the minority though (as I have also already said) so I will bow down to consensus. Will (aka Wimt) 21:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly see where you're coming from, but as you said earlier we might just have to agree to disagree on that point. Thanks for the discussion however – it was definitely useful and civil! Konekoniku 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been said before, but I'll say it here. The main reason to include the number isn't for readers who know about the controversy but want to find out hte number. The most compelling reason to include the number is for readers who find out about the number but don't know about the controversy. I'm thinking here of someone who sees the number on a t-shirt or randomly posted in a signature. They won't know what it means, and they'll come to Wikipedia to try to find out: "what's the deal with this weird number". It's essential to the encyclopedia that somebody typing the number into search can find their way to this page-- meaning we need an article entitled 09 F9... that redirects to here, and we need the full number included in this article somewhere so google can pick it up and send people our way. --Alecmconroy 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true there is no WP:DEADLINE; that's not an excuse to not do something right the first time. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed but it is a very good reason not to rush a decision. Plus I still don't agree that writing the whole number as opposed to a very clear abbreviation (which is being commonly used) would improve our discussion over the controversy surrounding it. We may just have to agree to disagree on that issue though. Will (aka Wimt) 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This subject of this article is not the number itself. --Ali'i 21:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So, what? We write another article about the number itself? It's certainly notable. But it would just get merged back here. We can save ourselves a lot of kabuki dancing by skipping those intermediate steps. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is really a legal issue, so we need some input from the Foundation. I don't have an opinion on inclusion, but the censored Digg photo should be de-censored if possible. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation has explicitly said it expresses no opinion, and Jimbo has encouraged people to just basically AGF with regards to this issue, leaving it up to standard wp procedures. Moreover, I would like to note that the Spanish version of this article (also hosted on Florida's servers) already includes the number, and the Foundation has not objected. Konekoniku 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that we've printed Illegal primes representing DeCSS. Why should things be any different for AACS? I also think that admins unilaterally barring the key from the wiki without first establishing a consensus really goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Whether we do or don't publish it, we need to come to an agreement. --Nintendorulez talk 18:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. --Ali'i 13:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom has declined, so let's go ahead with the key posting.Konekoniku 17:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That pertains to articles not content. I've gotten cranky lately about how AfD criteria keep getting misapplied. See: WP:NOTART -- Kendrick7^talk 01:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

AACS Arbitration

I have initiated an arbitration request due to User:Thebainer's unilateral decision making and full-protection of AACS encryption key controversy. The arbitration request can be found here - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#AACS_encryption_key_controversy. --Rodzilla (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have put it back to semiprotection - edit-warring then protecting on your version is, um, not good - David Gerard 22:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And personally, I'd still prefer it stay out until next weekend, just to discourage people thinking they can get their cause into Wikipedia by shouting loud enough - but I'm not going to be blocking anyone for adding it - David Gerard 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Key posting

I'm just asking people to please hold off with the key at least while the arbitration is in progress. (I can't and won't stop anyone posting it, I'm just asking nicely.) Calm is good - David Gerard 23:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm fully in favor of using the key. If we do decide to use it, it'll still be in the article by the deadline. No use in blowing things up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up but you beat me to it. I updated my post above to reflect that. --Rodzilla (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's wait until either the arbitration resolves, or the arbitrators reject the case (which looks somewhat likely). Konekoniku 02:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. The arbitration request seems largely about an admin's conduct reguarding an image of Digg's front page; an issue at best, peripheral to whether or not to post the key. Most of those involved in the arb request seem to agree that they are *not* asking the ArbCom's opinion on whether or not to post the key. The key is verifiable, germaine, and consensus is present to add it. What exactly is the remaining issue? -Toptomcat 04:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that until the Arbitration request is concluded, adding the key may result in more actions that are just the same as the ones that the arbitration focuses on. The arbitration came about due to a conflict over an image of the key, so until it's resolved the key outright shouldn't be posted. --Rodzilla (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks quite certain ArbCom has declined, so let's go ahead with the key posting. Konekoniku 17:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Device for circumventing copy protection?

It is already becoming apparent that the AACS doesn't have a leg to standard on. A key is not a device, the device is the encryption system. If they are careless enough to let someone find the key, to bad. A key itself is werth NOTHING. The AACS has OPENLY PUBLISHED the algorithms for encrpytion and decryption and now they have let their licensees publish the key's uneccrypted on peeoples computers who are running HD-DVD software. The AACS has openly given out complete device to cercumvent copy protection. They should sue themselves. If Wikipedia were in any other country wikipedia would have allowed the key long ago. Why is everyone so scared of millienium copy act? It cannot possible apply to a key, which is mere information, not a process or device to bypass copy protection.--Dacium 04:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Press noting "you guys are idiots" - where to put in?

John C. Dvorak has written a column noting that the lawyers appear to be idiots. This is somewhat more notable than bloggers or your ordinary sane human saying it ... is there a relevant place to put it in the article? Are there any other editorials from themselves-notable sources saying this? - David Gerard 10:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Duh, of course, press reaction - David Gerard 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Great article... favorite line, "First of all, nobody, myself included, knows what to do with the code. It is practically useless." There is a lot of good stuff in this article. --Ali'i 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Diesel Sweeties

Perhaps this already falls under 'mass media'; if so, revert. Diesel Sweeties is syndicated by United Features Syndicate, though the key appeared in the online branch of the comic and not (to my knowledge) in the print branch. The key is used as a Klaatu, barada nikto-esque way of defeating a robot. -- Sylvar 13:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of demand letters...

Search Results for 09-f9(and the rest of the key here):

Google: 1,900,000 results in 0.12 seconds

AltaVista: 1,640,000 results

Yahoo: 1,210,000 results in 0.48 sec.

MSN: 70,751 results

Lycos: 10,400 results

Wikipedia: 0 results

Those are alot of demand letters...

That's of course... not true. Since wiki searching is horrific I suggest you put this into google:

site:wikipedia.org YOUR-TEXT-HERE

MrMacMan ^Talk 17:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

T-shirt WITHOUT the hddvd key

I think it is a good idea to post a photo of the T-shirt that does NOT contain the hddvd key, hope this is legal, see http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/generic/947f/zoom/

AACS published the key by themselves!

During reading AACS DMCA complain to Google blogs I have found, that this compain itself does contain the key (since they are asking Google to remove the page http://linuxnotes.blogspot.com/2007/02/09 [etc.] .html ), please, see http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=03218 ! So these guys from AACS now can send the DMCA complain to themselves ;-). More seriously, I think, it is a good idea to write about this in the article, because if the publishing of the number on open website is illegeal, it must be illegal for everyone, including AACS themselves, however, they seem not to feel like this.

They didn't. They wrote a private letter to google, which google (or an employee of google) decided to publish. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you sure that DMCA complains can be sent as private? I do not think DMCA complain can be private. Imagine that I am hosting my website at hosting company A, and some company B sends DCMA complain to A asking to delete some content from my website. A does what was asked, I am calling to A support, asking what's happening, and receive and answer "some company wrote DMCA complain, but it is private, so we will not give you a copy, so you may not take any more legal actions even if you think this DMCA complain is incorrect". This scenario seems very strange for me - I think that A have no right to tell me "this letter is private", they have to give me a copy (and I have the right to show it to the lawer, or initiate any other legal proceeding, or put the copy on an open website on my decision - without asking A or B). Are you sure that DMCA complaine can be sent as private ?

That's something else. you are yourself an involved party, because it's your "account" that they are censoring, and as such you have the right to know by which authority that occurs, and to contest that decision. This pertains to company A posting every DMCA notice on their public website, regardless of the validity and parties involved. Now usually, it's so that if you send someone a letter, you have implicitely granted him the right to do everything he wants with it (This is the reason you see those annoying messages in companies emails sometimes that say "this is private information, you are not allowed to...." ). However in this case publishing the DMCA notice caused another public publication of the key, which is a DMCA violation of the PUBLISHING party. And as such the AACS could theoretically ask to remove that information from the website again in another notice. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Legal thoughts

Here is a link from the American Bar Association that just came out today discussing the controversy/Digg. I don't know exactly where to put it, but I think it may be useful to note some of the legal issues surrounding it. http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/my11blog.html Sentineneve 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't work out what it actually says about liability ... apparently there's some somewhere, or maybe there isn't, or something else ... - David Gerard 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've summarised it as best I can (not a lawyer) - it seems to say section 230 of the CDA may protect sites putting up the code, since it's arguably not copyrightable in itself - could someone who speaks IP lawyer please review? - David Gerard 19:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"who speaks IP lawyer" rotfl --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What would really be nice is if someone could take a few hours and go to one of the upcoming Roundtables on Intellectual Property Law hosted by the American Bar Assosciation. Maybe ask a question or two. The very apropos title of May/June's roundtable is "Who Is Liable for Speech in Cyberspace?" The Foundation is near Tampa, right? Well there is a scheduled one in Tampa on May 16th (next Wednesday). Others can be seen on the PDF list: Set dates. It would be nice if someone with a video camera could even go ask nicely if they would be able to record one of these roundtables. I'd be happy to, but unfortunately, none are in my area. I would be happy to transribe (part of?) the tape if they are allowed to be recorded and could be posted online. Please read more here. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(off topic) vanity

This is getting a worryingly good reception on my blags - David Gerard 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say

... for a controversial topic like this, with enough trouble attached to generate an arbitration case, that the article itself is actually looking pretty good. Well done.

I'm wondering if it needs other points of view. Could the AACS LA reasonably object to statements in it, for example? Has anyone edited this article who doesn't consider the AACS LA's actions odious? - David Gerard 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Good job all around :) Just looking forward, at some point maybe it can even be submitted for FA status! Konekoniku 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd think we'd actually have to go looking for other documentable POVs to make that - David Gerard 22:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

IP Blogs

Some sources that we could keep an eye on going forward:[3].

I found a post on a blog "maintained by the Schwimmer Mitchell Law Firm, a micro-boutique practicing trademark, copyright and domain name law in Westchester, New York" regarding 09 f9: [4] in which he links to Dave Winer's post on the subject: [5].

I don't know if any of this is helpful, but thought I'd make you all aware of this. --Ali'i 20:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom declined?

As of this moment, Vote on arbcom is 4 declines to 2 accepts. [6] To accept requires "four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes." There are 11 active Arbiters, so unless someone changes their vote or returns from inactivity, it's not going to be accepted. Does this mean "Arbcom has declined"? --Alecmconroy 12:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to ask this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. --bainer (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Key to be posted

While the arbitration request was declined (as it was too soon and there was good faith), the consensus seemed to be that removing the image of the key in the article unilaterally was improper as there is consensus to keep it. As such, I will be adding the key itself to the article. However, it is currently blacklisted on the spam filter, so I have posted a request to whitelist this page for posting the key. Please see my comments there and feel free to add anything I may have missed or change anything I may have gotten wrong. --Rodzilla (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It can't be added there, attempting to save the whitelist with the key on it triggers $wgSpamRegex, which is above the whitelist and blacklist, and can only be changed by developers. Prodego ^talk 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whta I did differently, but it seems like the problem, if there was one, resolved itself. We should, however, get 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63 changed to a redirect to this page-- it's current protected. --Alecmconroy 01:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! Konekoniku 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the key though, you are missing the ending. Prodego ^talk 02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That can't possibly be correct. It's posted on the Spanish Wikipedia: es:Controversia por la clave cifrado AACS, which is in the U.S. too. They can't be using different software. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with the way they formated it I think. "09: F9: ... 88: C0" is ok, but without the colons is blocked. We should not do that. Prodego ^talk 02:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point.... confusing, and no one on the blacklist or whitelist pages can seem to give a straight answer on this point. I've added it with decimals as separators, which I think is elegant enough except it prevents automatic wrapping from line to line. What do you guys think? The colons would work too, and might be the best available solution. Konekoniku 02:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please consider that it is blocked for a reason (albeit an unknown one), we should not be engineering ways around this. Prodego ^talk 02:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but from what I understand it is being blocked for spamming reasons, not content reasons. I've switched the formatting to comply with the spanish version, b/c that has been up for over a week without objection and should therefore be fine. Konekoniku 02:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If developers are intentionally trying to prevent it from being on this page, then we shouldn't try to get around it. If it's just a software bug where the server is confused about what we want to do, but not something the human beings would likely object to, then it's a "bug workaround". I don't know enough to determine which is which, but if someone feels strongly it's being done for a reason, I certainly won't re-add it until we can get to the bottom of it. --Alecmconroy 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

True enough. I think the fact that the es wp has had it up in this exact format for over a week says that the devs are not objecting, though. Konekoniku 02:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that developers seldom go round checking up on articles and that eswiki operates largely independently from enwiki - what happens on eswiki does not necessarily have any implication on what happens or should happen on enwiki and vice-versa. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard actually explicitly notified WP:OFFICE of the presence of the key on eswiki as soon as it was posted, and WP:OFFICE AFAIK governs both. Moreover, both are on WM servers in Florida.Konekoniku 03:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The developers should not be unilaterally deciding whether content should be blocked from wikipedia. The variable in the code for spam filtering is meant to be used to prevent spam robots and other spammers from filling the boards with spam. The spam blacklist on wikipedia itself is meant for more specific cases. As such, it's completely ridiculous for the developers to have blacklisted the number at the code level. --Rodzilla (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Like your new formatting, btw. Konekoniku 03:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. The reason the developers added it to the spam filter wasn't to stop the number being posted here. It was because it was being spammed across huge numbers of absolutely unrelated articles (and lots of posts on Digg were encouraging people to do that). That is spamming, so the spam filter did its job. Will (aka Wimt) 07:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a proper way to handle spam filtering, and that is via the spam blacklist. It's a publicly viewable page that anyone can view and any administrator can edit. Plus there's a process for adding/removing items from it and for whitelisting pages to be able to use items that are blacklisted. That is what should be used to prevent spam (which I agree was a problem). When the $wgSpamRegex variable is used by the developers to outright block legitimate content it undermines the entire process of Wikipedia and defeats the whole point of the spam blacklist. --Rodzilla (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While I can't speak for the developers, I presume the reason they added it to the spam filter was because it was an emergency situation. Idiots were spamming the key across multiplepages and the situation had to be dealt with ASAP. Once things have calmed down and the idiot vandals have moved own, we can get back to the process of creating an encylopedia why may include mentioning the key in this page but doesn't include spamming the key across wikipedia Nil Einne 07:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical article request / another $.02

(Crosspost from Wikipedia_talk:Keyspam). I don't care much whether the 32 hex numbers are included in the keyspam essay or in the nontechnical article about the controversy, but Wikipedia certainly should include a technical article about AACS itself, and that article should include the key, just like Wikipedia's articles about MD5, SHA-1, and other such algorithms likewise contain parameters expressed as hex numbers, as well as test vectors and pseudocode. They are not "how to" articles in the sense of presenting step by step instructions, but they nonetheless give enough info for a competent programmer to create a complete interoperable implementation, which is what an article about this sort of topic should do. There was never editorial controversy over whether those articles or the hex numbers in them were encyclopedic, even though there was (and is) tremendous controversy about the use and dissemination of crypto technology. The AACS article should be written in the same spirit as those cryptography articles, at the same level of detail and including all the relevant hex numbers, presenting the info neutrally and straightforwardly without being embarassed about it or resorting to cutesy subterfuges like smuggling the numbers in through a Digg screen shot. 75.62.6.237 05:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the number is appropriate to include in this article, as do many of this page's editors. This is why the key was added to the article recently. Please see the main article and the above discussions on the inclusion of the key in the article. --Rodzilla (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny italization?

I saw that we are using a funny italization method to publish the number, so I checked to confirm that it was still banned from being printed on wikipedia. It is, so I changed it to say, "beginning with 09F9." Rozilla reverted with the following edit summary, "Undid revision 130714707 by -Ozone- (talk) - You did not "fix" anything. Please see the talk page before removing the number." Where is this consensus? Should we be breaking the law? From Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, "The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law." I assume this means we are supposed to stay within the Florida law. I believe it should be posted, but faithfully follow the rulings of the Wikimedia officials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -Ozone- (talk • contribs).

The following has been copied from MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#09_F9_.5B....5D_88_C0, as it's a pretty good summary of things:

Consensus has been reached that the HD-DVD key itself is encyclopedic information to be included in AACS encryption key controversy. A summary of arguments (most taken from this article's talk page) as to why it is valuable and encyclopedic information:

• Consensus exists to post the key in the article. This alone should be enough to have it allowed.
• The number has been referenced in various media outlets as the "most famous number on the internet." It can be found almost anywhere (1.6 million google search results) but is not in the wikipedia article that focuses on the number and the controversy surrounding it.
• It would be a valuable addition to the article. In fact, it is the very subject of the article. If you don't know the number, this article doesn't tell you what it is. Likewise, a person who sees the number in an unconnected context currently has no way of relating it to this article.
• It has been widely republished on many other websites across the Internet. This is clear evidence of notability.
• Anyone who wants to find the number themselves can easily do so (in fact, it's included on some of the external links). Wikipedia is not making the number any more 'secret' by not publishing it here.
• Jimbo Wales himself has confirmed that the Wikimedia Foundation has received no takedown notices or other legal warnings that would forbid Wikipedia from publishing the number (see above).
• By not publishing the number Wikipedia allows censhorship to attack Wikipedia and it might harm healthy development of Wikipedia in the future.
• It has been shown and published in American television (Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy#Key_seen_and_spoken_on_Amercian_TV_channel_Current_TV).
• The key has been posted on the spanish wikipedia (es:Controversia por la clave cifrado AACS) for nearly a week and its inclusion has been upheld as valid.
• The article currently cites numerous pages that include the full key.
• The article includes an image (Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage before rose blog post screenshot.png) that includes the key numerous times. While there was initially some edit-warring due to this, the storm has settled and the inclusion of the image has been deemed valid.

Please read over the discussions on this page. There is no evidence that posting the key is violating the law, and the foundation has not expressed any opinion on the issue (you would think if posting it would put wikipedia in danger, or violate the law, they'd say something like "please don't post it until we can look into the legalities of doing so," right?). Therefore we as editors have to rely on approved policies, and based on those the consensus was that the key was encyclopedic information which should be posted. --Rodzilla (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Rodzilla above. But Ozone, thanks for checking out this talk page first before unilaterally reverting and sparking another RfA. Konekoniku 08:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, we should either remove it from the spam list, or don't publish it. But using a "feature" in media wiki that prevents the key to be treated as the banned string is first of all a bit silly, and shows how to circumvent the spam measures. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem: the developers have circumvented any editor or administrator discussion over this issue because they hard-coded the number into the software to prevent it from being used. I requested that it be removed from the spam filter on the relevant page but was met with responses saying it should be removed but nobody could remove it because it had been hard-coded into the software. --Rodzilla (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree with a couple of your bullet point above (and point that some of them are novel interpretations of facts), but overall, not too bad. I still think it looks clunky, but as I've said before, I am probably in the minority, so have at it. --Ali'i 13:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I apologize both for my unsigned comment and ignorance, I do believe it is against the law still though. Ozone 03:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work

Finally. we made it. A lot of controversy, a lot of fuzz, a lot of spamming, and in the end a proper and good article I think. Good work everyone, and especially David, who has done a great job on keeping this article usable. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the key is to be retained

Can the developers PLEASE take this out of wgSpamRegex, or whitelist it for this article? There's clearly no consensus to block it in that manner. --Random832 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There are already people at the blacklist and at whitelist trying to make this happen. but apparently the developers are a tad unresponsive so far. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding decimal since not everyone understands what is hexadecimal

This issue become very popular, not everyone is understanding what is "hexadecimal" (I had to explain this to parents and to several friends). What about adding: "publishing a 16-byte hexadecimal number, "the key here" (which is equal to 13256278887989457651018865901401704640 in tradidional decimal form), which is one of the cryptographic keys for HD DVDs and Blu-ray Discs." ?

Not to sound blunt, but can't they just click on hexadecimal and learn 2 new things on one day ? This representation you propose doesn't really serve the article, because it's not the one that is the elemental part of the controversy. I don't think it's a good idea. However I do think that we might be able to clarify the introduction a bit more for the average layman... --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Please, tell me, why can't there be redirect from 09=F9 [etc.] to page AACS encryption key controversy. I mean why the unexisting page is locked and prevented from creation. This number can't be wiped from here (the project); otherwise it is violation of official policy What Wikipedia is not, part: 1.10 Wikipedia is not censored for good taste.

This number is even blocked to write. How it is inserted then to the article? --Aktron (t|c) 11:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's in the article using some cunning spam filter evasion for the moment, although my understanding is there are people working to get it removed from the spam filter or at least whitelisted from this page (which is probably a more sensible option seeing the potential that this still has for spam). As far as redirects are concerned, I guess we could discuss sensible ones and get them unsalted. Will (aka Wimt) 12:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. I was quite shocked when I saw that at the first time. --Aktron (t|c) 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's blocked because at the height of the Digg.com controversy, people were spamming it all over the place, which was undesired in wikipedia. I'm not sure we should link that article title either. On it's own the key has little value. it's only value is in an article about the AACS key controversy, or as a key to crack AACS protection. I think having the key in this article will suffice, we don't really need a redirect I think. And the key should be removed from the spam list yes, but getting this done is proving to be a wikibureaucracy thing :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that spamming this key is very dangerous. It has to be in the exact place, where it has an encyclopedic value. And this is one meaning in the article. Nothing more, nothing less. --Aktron (t|c) 14:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That article title has been deleted and deletion endorsed. Please do not mistake Wikipedia for an extension to Digg. We can document the controversy perfectly well without deliberately taunting the rights owners and inviting a takedown notice, WP:NOT#Info applies. Anybody who wants to know what the number is can find it easily enough, I for one do not see why we should consciously place the project in legal jeopardy just for the sake of making a point. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean #IINFO. well that's a matter of debate. There are plenty of people who won't care about the mass of the space shuttle, yet it's something we list. Anyways, concensus is so far that the number should be mentioned in this article alone. If there were guaranteed no legal actions that might follow this, we would 100% list the number based on the controversy. As far as I'm concerned that is reason enough to mention it in the article taking into account the humongous publicity the controversy has had. When the AACS wants to send a DMCA notice, then they are free to do so. Until that moment I don't think we should be chilled into not publishing. We can definetly be intimidated after that and probably will, but that is up to the Foundation to decide in my eyes. For all we know at such a time they'll get an offer from some rich dude who will say: "I'll pay all the legal fees, let's take it to court". If not, we simply remove it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus means no significant dissent. Plenty of dissent exists in this case. It's not about chilling effects, that applies to Digg, and we can document it, it's about not being wilful. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not so hard to find on Wikipedia. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

True, 09 F9 .. C0 and its ilk were deleted, and the deletion review upheld it, but all is not as it might seem at first glance. The closing admin was TheBainer, who had an RFAr filed against him for his unilateral actions. The opinion of the community was about 2-to-1 in favor of undeletion/redirect/merge. TheBainer seems to be aware of the consensus to undelete/redirect, as his comment upon closing was "the community doesn't vote on what is or is not legally problematic". [7]

More than that though, a deletion that made a lot of since on May 1 makes a lot less since now that two weeks have passed. The foundation's had time to become aware of hte issue and make a statement on the issue. Arbcom's been consulted, and it would seem they've also decided to let the consensus stand. So, I 100% would have supported deletion as an emergency stopgap measure until the powers that be could look over the issue. Now that they have, the conclusion is there's no legal reason we can't include the key. Either their derelict in performing their duty to assess the situation and guide us, or we're probably safe to proceed as we normally would in a content dispute like this.

Furthermore, I would say that a redirect from 09 F9 .. C0 to this page is in some ways, even more important than actually including the key in the article. People who know about hte article don't HAFTA see the key-- but people who see the key absolutely need to be able to find this article. It's necessary to creating a good encyclopedia article that people who see this key all over the place can find the article-- I concur that "I want to spite The Man" is a lousy reason to include the key. But "I want to spite the people who are trying to spite The Man" is an equally lousy reason to exlude it. --Alecmconroy 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And the result of that RFAr was? That he had acted in good faith. I would remind you that the default with Wikipedia is to exclude content unless and until there is consensus to include it. In this case consensus does not mean a few editors loudly calling for inclusion so they can get one over on The Man. When devs make changes to prevent addition of certain text strings, it's best to respect that until Foundation has delivered a judgement on the matter and not to deliberately circumvent that in order to make a point. I don't want to spite anyone, but I don't want to foot the legal bill either. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To be very fair here -- consensus was developed was created over many days of discussion leading to the posting of the key. Same with the image -- for many days editors gave their views and clear consensus was reached to include that version of the image. I'm pretty sure the discussion is still above if you want to go through it but there was very little disagreement about it AFAIK. Yes the devs blocked it, but that was a hasty decision and i feel that everyone acknowledged that the key was being plastered in articles that weren't related to the topic at hand -- this topic is related. The Foundation has chosen not to comment (I asked), then I went to Jimbo (yes I asked) and he basically said to keep a cool head and assume good faith. Well based on that a consensus was reached about the image first and then about posting the key. Everyone understands that they don't want wiki to be held liable, but its also that it's inclusion makes this a much better article. MrMacMan ^Talk 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Equally though, there do seem to be an increasing number of dissenting voices. As I have always said, I don't personally think the entire key adds anything to the article about this controversy and is so long that it looks rather out of place sitting in the middle of the text. Also, a general comment to everyone, please don't revert with edit summaries like "REVERT. Violation of official policy // Wikipedia is not censored". That policy, as has been discussed many times, isn't really relevant here and certainly isn't a reason to include something (it's a reason not to exclude something). There still needs to be a consensus to include it. Whether or not there is a consensus is what we are debating here, censorship is entirely irrelevant. Will (aka Wimt) 16:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To comment in a very brief manner here -- there was clear consensus for inclusion of the 'uncensored' image, and then there only a few dissenting voiced against inclusion of the key. I don't feel it was 'plastered' anywhere and i feel that it's place in the article was warranted. (and yes the edit summary was a little stupid -- as I have said, it was put in because of consensus decision, not because we want to flaunt some rules or make an example). MrMacMan ^Talk 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the fact that there is no need to censor the image. I don't think I used the term "plastered", but I did say that a number of users (myself included) expressed concern that such a long hash key looks rather out of place in the article and doesn't seem to add anything to this article which is about the controversy. That's where opinion differs though. Will (aka Wimt) 16:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my objection has to do with readability and encyclopedic tone, not anything to do with censorship. I feel the image is fine (as consensus also appears to think), but the full number is unwieldy in the middle of the sentence. Just thought I'd note my opinion (again). --Ali'i 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What would you think about a footnote or lower in the article? It does seem a bit... odd for the lead. --Alecmconroy 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guy-- I should say I wasn't trying to single you out and say you were acting out of spite. I was just saying, the whole political concerns, pro and con, are totally tangential to our decisions here-- or the should be at least. I've heard people say we should "stick it to The Man", and I've heard people say "We shouldn't let the Digg people influence us", but i think both those tracks are unhelpful to deliberations.

And yes, everyone agrees TheBainer was trying to act in good faith-- but I think there was a general understanding that if since he had stopped acting so unilaterally, the case could be rejected. Maybe I'm putting words in peoples mouths, but that's certainly the vibe I get from the comments of Paul August and those who agreed with him.

And I do have mixed feelings about deliberately circumventing the devs through creative italicism. If they were just trying to combat the spam but wouldn't actually object, then alls well and good. If they actually would object to it being on this page, then we probably should deal with that concern direct, not circumvent it.

All that said-- is there any content related reason (i.e. one not based on legal opinions) for us to exclude the key? I don't think I've heard any-- it seems like there's a total consensus that the key should be included so long as it's not legally prohibited. Again, I may be wrong on that, but it's hard for me to imagine how an article lacking the key could possibly be more encyclopedic than one that has it. It helps people find the article through google, if nothing else. The foundation experts seem to have given the commmunity the go ahead to publish if we want, it seems like lots of people want, and the lawyers and leaders say there's no reason not to. So, there we go! :) --Alecmconroy 16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong on that. --Ali'i 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha--- that's edit conflicts for you! As soon as I type it, the comment just above me disproves what I just said. :). And yeah, I pretty much agree with you on that. a gianormous number seems like it would be better in a footnote, sidebar, or its own section, not just stuck midsentence in the lead like that. --Alecmconroy 16:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

About wgSpamRegex, I asked on the admin board if someone could help in getting some communication going with the people involved. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.24wgSpamRegex. This shows exactly why blacklist is preferred over SpamRegex btw. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Restarting indenting I disagree that it should be a footnote. While the article is not about the number itself, without the number the entire subject of the article is essentially meaningless. Therefore I feel that the number in the article should be treated similarly to the article for Pi. --Rodzilla (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that having the controversy of the number be the subject of an article about the controversy makes the article "essentially meaningless"? This article is NOT about the number. The article Pi is about the number. This article is not about any number. --Ali'i 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the article is severely lacking if the number is not treated as a significantly important fact within the article. Significant facts should not be relegated to a footnote. The article Pi is specifically about the number Pi. This article is about the controversy surrounding the key. Imagine for a second that there was an article (say...dealing with the ratio Pi in a Circle) that focused heavily on the number Pi. Shouldn't that article then link to the Pi article so people know what Pi is? Of course it should. However as there is no article for the number itself (and I think everyone agrees there shouldn't be), this is the appropriate place to inform readers as to what the number is, just as if there were no article for Pi it should be included in Circle. As such, we should include the number as a main fact in the article. --Rodzilla (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. What the number does is a crucial aspect of the article because it is the entire reason for the controversy that has resulted. What the number is is much less important. After all, it doesn't make any difference that the number is 09F9... as opposed to any other. If the number had been 9785... instead it wouldn't have made any difference to the resulting controversy. I like the compromise of putting it as a footnote as its importance is solely for identification. It looks totally out of place inline in the text. Will (aka Wimt) 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reference to Pi is instructive, however: it only lists the first six digits in the lead-- the first 50 digits are listed later in the article in a special section. Perhaps the formatting used on Pi might work here-- a sort of special section on numeric value, indent, and formatting. If we wanted to stick the decimal equivalent in the article, we could put that there too. I tend to agree with Ali that sticking it midsentence in the lead is hitting people over the head with it, but I could see how footnoting it might maybe be a little "too buried" perhaps maybe (but maybe just right). --Alecmconroy 18:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's worthy of its own section for the same reason it isn't worthy of its own article. Perhaps the most logical solution would be for something similar to e (mathematical constant) to happen. Right at the end of the lead it's listed and indented. --Rodzilla (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, place it at the end with the full number not as a footer. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus exists to post the key in the article. This alone should be enough to have it allowed.
• The number has been referenced in various media outlets as the "most famous number on the internet." It can be found almost anywhere (1.6 million google search results) but is not in the wikipedia article that focuses on the number and the controversy surrounding it.
• It would be a valuable addition to the article. In fact, it is the very subject of the article. If you don't know the number, this article doesn't tell you what it is. Likewise, a person who sees the number in an unconnected context currently has no way of relating it to this article.
• It has been widely republished on many other websites across the Internet. This is clear evidence of notability.
• Anyone who wants to find the number themselves can easily do so (in fact, it's included on some of the external links). Wikipedia is not making the number any more 'secret' by not publishing it here.
• Jimbo Wales himself has confirmed that the Wikimedia Foundation has received no takedown notices or other legal warnings that would forbid Wikipedia from publishing the number (see above).
• By not publishing the number Wikipedia allows censhorship to attack Wikipedia and it might harm healthy development of Wikipedia in the future.
• It has been shown and published in American television (Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy#Key_seen_and_spoken_on_Amercian_TV_channel_Current_TV).
• The key has been posted on the spanish wikipedia (es:Controversia por la clave cifrado AACS) for nearly a week and its inclusion has been upheld as valid.
• The article currently cites numerous pages that include the full key.
• The article includes an image (Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage before rose blog post screenshot.png) that includes the key numerous times. While there was initially some edit-warring due to this, the storm has settled and the inclusion of the image has been deemed valid.

Reposting this since it's been ignored in this section. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(Reposting this since it's been ignored in this section) Well, I would disagree with a couple of your bullet points above (and point out that some of them are novel interpretations of facts), but overall, not too bad. I still think it looks clunky, but as I've said before, I am probably in the minority, so have at it. --Ali'i 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it, but i can live with it like this --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

Attempting to get around the spam blacklist by inserting in between characters is a bad-faith action. Do not do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if it would be possible to actually CONTACT those people, then that would be an option. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.24wgSpamRegex --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal has not recieved consensus. The number is on the blacklist. Do not circumvent site security. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, I have it on good authority that this page has been whitelisted to include this number. There's just a bug in the wiki code somewhere. It's not bad faith to work around a bug. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not accurate. If it was accurate, you could insert the number without violating site security. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is just stupid. The wgSpamRegex is an emergency low level procedure that should rarely be invoked. The fact that is was invoked for this was bad enough, the fact that it's almost impossible to get it undone is even worse, and the fact that you accuse us of bad faith is even more bad faithy. Jimmy spoke, there is so far no reason we cannot have the number in wikipedia. This developer block needs to be transferred to the blacklist instead, with a (already in place ?) whitelist exception for this page. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely accurate, devs added it to that 'blacklist' not the usual blacklist without any go-ahead from the foundation, they do not have the rights to censor good-faith edits of wikipedia. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 18:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, something like this was bound to happen as long as the text was still blacklisted. It's unfortunate because it's a needless edit war that sorta impedes our ability to polish and improve the article, but at the same time, it's an opportunity for us to step back and take a moment to go about doing things the right way.

Seems to me that the software issue should be posted to one or more of the Wikipedia:Mailing lists. Probably the English Wikipedia list or the developers list. Seems like that's where the people who could fix the problem hang out. --Alecmconroy 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I commented on this at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_NOT_transparent - to me, the most disturbing aspect is that this hard blacklist apparently is not viewable even by the whitelist administrators. I feel like using it to prohibit the posting of the key to a relevant article was an abuse, and it makes me wonder whether other abuses have occurred. Please understand that as far as I'm concerned, the revoked, highly-publicized AACS key is nothing but a bit of chum tossed into the ocean - $wgSpamRegex is the fish that has swallowed this lure. Whether the article contains the key, a link to a media source with the key, an image of the key, or rot13 of the key is only a stylistic issue editorially, and possibly no difference at all legally, whichever side you're on about that. The real question is whether Wikipedia - and all the Wikiprojects in the world that follow its example - can survive in a legal world without relying on a secret non-consensus censorship protocol. 204.186.218.163 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected

The article has just been fully protected. I have to say, as one of the most dissenting voices to adding the key here, I strongly disagree with this move. Will (aka Wimt) 19:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another rogue adminitrator. I have informed him of his mistake and hope that this will be resolved ASAP. --Rodzilla (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a "rogue administrator"... it was someone seeing a revert war stepping in to stop it. And while I disagree with the protection, it may have been the right thing to do. (It is no longer protected, by the way). Don't assume bad faith on Steel's part. --Ali'i 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it was a very much necessary reality check for everyone i think. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're right really. That edit warring was a mess and was only going to get people blocked. Will (aka Wimt) 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has changed

Given that the developers have spoken and prevented the key from being posted, it is clear to me that consensus on key posting has changed. Unless the developers/foundation states, post the software change on the 14th, that the key is acceptable, I am opposed to violating site security to include the key. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So now one programming decision creates WP:CONSENSUS? I don't see anyhing at that page that reflects this view. Next you'll tell us not to use WP:BUNCH -- hey, those edit boxes are in the wrong place are there because of consensus, don't ya know! -- Kendrick7^talk 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem posting the key. I have a problem with posting an obfusciated key with '' to avoid site security unless such is otherwise directly bless by a devloper or greater. I suspect many, many other users agree (at least one admin, JzG, has commented to this effect). That would be a change in consensus due to a technological change, yes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The number has existed on the spanish Wikipedia for well over a week. User:David Gerard notified WP:OFFICE of it right after it was posted, and WP:OFFICE or the devs have not objected. Konekoniku 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) The developers of the software have no input on consensus or editing pages. They develop the software, and the use of the hard-coded spam filter is to handle spam that otherwise can not be reasonably handled by the community/wikipedia accepted spam blacklist/whitelist method. The developers overstepped their bounds. Consensus is determined by the editors, and you should look to the discussions on this page from the editors in determining matters of what should/shouldn't be included in articles. --Rodzilla (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please show me where a developer states that is is acceptable for us to cirumvent this feature. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please show me where it states that developers have any authority to control legitimate edits and content of pages outside of preventing spamming. Until a new consensus can be reached/the consensus changes, I have re-added the key as it existed before the edit war started, and added a note telling people to familiarize themselves with this before reverting the key out of the article. Note that developer decisions do not constitute any form of consensus in terms of content at all. --Rodzilla (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the appropriate quote, as I just posted at ANI. It says it was added to the filter due to being used as spam. I don't believe its use on this page would qualify as such. Will (aka Wimt) 19:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See also: [8] & [9]. --Ali'i 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong way round. Policy is to exclude controversial content unless consensus exists to include it (which is not the case here). Ever wondered why we don't have pictures of child pornography on the child pornography article? Seems to me a lot of people want to get the key on Wikipedia, but I've yet to see a terribly good reason to deliberately do something that got Digg a takedown notice, in order to document the event. The number itself is not actually important in documenting the event, which is what this article is about. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. How many more people need to agree before we can yell "consensus" at everyone? I'm looking for a specific number... ;-) --Ali'i 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe a general consensus does exist to include it, as established in the Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy/Archive1#Should_the_number_be_listed.3F section. Consensus, of course, does not mean unanimity. Moreover, the number has existed on the spanish Wikipedia for well over a week. User:David Gerard notified WP:OFFICE of it right after it was posted, and WP:OFFICE or the devs have not objected. Konekoniku 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If by "not objected" you mean "put it on a blacklist that only developers can edit." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No no, it was on the blacklist before being inserted into the spanish WP article. If you'll pop over to take a look, they used their own "circumvention measure". WP:OFFICE was duly informed and chose not to object. Konekoniku 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This in no way can be compared to including CP in child pornography. Excluding contrevsial content? Censorship. JzG it's been addressed multiple times on this page that it should be included and the consensus is that it should be! ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 20:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

O RLY? Wilfully including content you know has been asserted to break the law? Hmmm. In any case, including it requires deliberate and wilful evasion of the site-wide regex blacklist filter (not just the spam blacklist, which any meta admin can edit, only devs can edit the regex filter) so evading the filter is clearly an act of subversion. Please go and petition the devs to remove it, so you can include the key. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows this is breaking the law. Seriously. DMCA and IP stuff is very, very complex. They have whole trials to figure out who's breaking what laws if any. For my part, I very very seriously doubt posting the key is breaking the law. Posting an executable that can crack HD-DVD-- maybe. Posting a number that could potentially be used to create such a key? I sincerely doubt it. And of course, the odds of Wikipedia actually being sued on this are what I would call a "slightly-positive zero"-- infinitesimal. --Alecmconroy 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. We've already been through one RfAr over this issue, and the arbitrators agreed that the sysop who continued to revert the page and placed it on full protect was in the wrong. Need we go through another? Konekoniku 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The arbs agreed that the action was taken in good faith, unlike the act of deliberately circumventing the regex filter, whcih is scarcely posisble in good faith. Let's wait for a legal opinion from Foundation, it will be in before the publication deadline. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Go read the case yourself. The arbs commented that the action was wrong, but because it was taken in good faith there was no need to reprimand User:Thebainer further. However, in this case, unlike Thebainer I do not believe you can claim good faith in any RfA discusion since you are now clearly aware of that previous example. Consider this your due notification, a RfA request will be filed within 24 hours unless you comply with consensus. In the meantime, can some other admin unprotect the page and revert the vandalism? Konekoniku 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a point to avoid confusion: RfA is requests for adminship whereas RfAr is requests for arbitration. It could all become quite surreal if this ended up at RfA ;-) Will (aka Wimt) 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for catching that! :p Konekoniku 20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom made no ruling on this issue. Please do not misinform people that they have. Mahalo --Ali'i 20:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment was not made with the intent to misinform. The Arbs comments in this case are clear: they agreed that Thebainer's actions were wrong, but chose not to pursue the case further because it was taken in good faith. If you disagree with my summary, please point out why. Konekoniku 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the dev's added it to their filter to avoid unnecessary spamming the number on the night where all of this controversy occurred ... not as a content or legal decision. --guyzero | talk 20:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Before this gets any more absurd I strongly recommend that Guy begins to back up his claims with facts/links/citations/references. Everyone else in here has provided backing to their arguments (see the entire content of the text on this page) yet you (Guy) continue to make baseless claims. I'm fine with you disagreeing, but saying the things you're saying is making things rather difficult and absurd when you don't back them up. --Rodzilla (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but would you mind clarifying which claims JzG makes that you want references for? Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As it doesn't seem to have been noted here, this has been taken back to arbitration. Will (aka Wimt) 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I take that back. Will (aka Wimt) 20:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

position

As far as I can ascertain any foundation position at all, people should just decide by normal consensus&process here whether or not the key should be posted.

Personally I'd like to prevent a digg-like protest, so a safety-valve might not even be a bad idea. At least we'll have postings of the key in one or a limited umber of places, so we will be able to act promptly should we receive further instructions from the foundation.

I don't think the arbcom would decide much different from that.

Does that sound like a sane approach?

--Kim Bruning 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree about this, it appears all spamming of the key has been removed and further spam prevented, I think the inclusion of the key in this article at some point in the opening section without discouraging flow; possibly at the end as already suggested like in e (mathematical constant). ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 20:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Kim, not that I don't trust you, but why is the number still on the hard-regex list, rather than the normal soft one? Do you think my ability to mention that you should go to www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Hipocrite is a problem? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me go ask --Kim Bruning 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

2 Weeks ago it certainly needed to be there. When I went to look, I just spotted David Gerard asking the devs if we still need it there now though. --Kim Bruning 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[10] --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Rob Church states that $wgSpamRegex is set in the site configuration and matches all text, the spam blacklist matches against URLs only. There's no "hard" and "soft" about it. --Kim Bruning 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you could thank him for me, that would be appreciated. Can you also ask him if the developers are ok with circumventing $wgSpamRegex to post the number based on community consensus, or if they feel such circumvention is not accetable either in this case, or under any circumstances? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually we're just requesting this particular regex be removed, if there's no further spam. Rob Church can't do that, we need to ask Brion or Tim Starling. --Kim Bruning 22:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree. I would like to add that a similar RfAr case had been previously filed with ArbCom with very similar circumstances, and the arbs there agreed that the sysop in question, User:Thebainer, acted incorrectly (but that no further reprimand was needed because he acted in good faith). Konekoniku 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that an editor with 09F9 in his sig is in support, but I stand by my comments earlier:

• If you have to evade the regex filters you are doing something wrong
• If you k now other sites have received takedown notices for publishing the same content, you will be on very dodgy ground if it ever did come to a legal case
• Knowing the number in full is absolutely not essential to understanding the controversy.

I can't think of a reason for inclusion which is anywhere near compelling enough to override the concerns. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

While I respect your opinions, many of these same issues were raised in discussions leading up to the consensus, and respectfully, your opinions are not worth more than the opinions of others. Please yield. My earlier comments stand. Konekoniku 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(editconflict)Well don't you think it's good to give people an impression of what kind of number it is ? There is an alternative. we could create our own number 16-byte hexadecimal number and say: it was about a number that looks somewhat like this 83 F8 A1 .... C0 but this is not the key in question. I think it would be better to mention the right number, but alternatively i definetly think we need to show people how long this number is, what kind of characters it contains etc.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a possible plan. Note that the key is just a normal number, it's just written down funny. You can write it in normal everyday decimal as 132562789... (for a total of 38 digits) --Kim Bruning 21:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, some people here don't like seeing the key, some people do. I'll leave it to the consensus process. I don't think RFAr is nescesary though. (myself, I just think this entire case is an example of chilling effect. :-/ ) --Kim Bruning 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus exists to post the key in the article. This alone should be enough to have it allowed.
• The number has been referenced in various media outlets as the "most famous number on the internet." It can be found almost anywhere (1.6 million google search results) but is not in the wikipedia article that focuses on the number and the controversy surrounding it.
• It would be a valuable addition to the article. In fact, it is the very subject of the article. If you don't know the number, this article doesn't tell you what it is. Likewise, a person who sees the number in an unconnected context currently has no way of relating it to this article.
• It has been widely republished on many other websites across the Internet. This is clear evidence of notability.
• Anyone who wants to find the number themselves can easily do so (in fact, it's included on some of the external links). Wikipedia is not making the number any more 'secret' by not publishing it here.
• Jimbo Wales himself has confirmed that the Wikimedia Foundation has received no takedown notices or other legal warnings that would forbid Wikipedia from publishing the number (see above).
• By not publishing the number Wikipedia allows censhorship to attack Wikipedia and it might harm healthy development of Wikipedia in the future.
• It has been shown and published in American television (Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy#Key_seen_and_spoken_on_Amercian_TV_channel_Current_TV).
• The key has been posted on the spanish wikipedia (es:Controversia por la clave cifrado AACS) for nearly a week and its inclusion has been upheld as valid.
• The article currently cites numerous pages that include the full key.
• The article includes an image (Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage before rose blog post screenshot.png) that includes the key numerous times. While there was initially some edit-warring due to this, the storm has settled and the inclusion of the image has been deemed valid.

I think parts of this are still very relevant, sorry I can't remember who wrote this to credit them ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 21:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And parts are still very incorrect (or at least stretching the truth a bit). And I can credit you with repeating them (again). --Ali'i 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The position that potentially illegal content, which we know has received takedown notices on other (less popular) websites, should be included until proved illegal is a ludicrous one. It is the utter reverse of usual policy: we remove potential image and text copyright violations on sight, before copyright owners complain; we remove unsourced negative material from biographies immediately, without having to check whether it is justified. Moreover, why include the whole key which is unmemorable, instead of just "09 F9" which is becoming its abbreviated name? Sam Blacketer 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I find Hex numbers quite easy to memorize. (For instance, my permanent GPG key from memory is EDDEAA07, BBC and Archimedes computers have OSCLI at 0xFFEE, etc). Note that numbers can not be copyrighted AFAIK. This particular number is claimed to be a circumvention tool, which is something else. --Kim Bruning 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Numbers can certainly be copywritten. 1's and 0's in a specific order are copywritten all the time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the theory of Illegal numbers , yes. I don't know the legal status of that. --Kim Bruning 22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The number should be included. The article refers to the key numerous times, it makes no sense to not explicitly mention what the article is discussing. My own opinion is that the key should be posted in the abbreviated 09 F9 form for readability, footnoted to the entire key. I've noticed that many of the recent edits and reverts discuss consensus with each side claiming it. :-) With the large amount of comments/discussion on various related subjects on this talk page, is there an obvious yardstick that can be used to determine consensus? cheers, --guyzero | talk 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Take the 3 or 1 or 0 rr pledge

Take one of the pledges to stop revert warring.

WP:1RR

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

310 reverts? Yeah, I'll take that pledge. ;-) But seriously, this has to stop. --Ali'i 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

3 or 1 or 0 - apologies. You've already taken the 3rr pledge by not being blocked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In ever seperate subproblem of the changes i have so far limited my self to 2 reverts so far. I'd wish more people would do that yes.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One editor has already been blocked for WP:3RR. Please engage in discussions and not in edit wars. Continuing with such will result on page protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)