Talk:AACS encryption key controversy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Speedy deletion tag

W1k13rh3nry brought to my attention the fact that this page, which I had tagged for speedy deletion earlier today, is actually a full-fledged article and certainly not worthy of deletion. I have no idea what happened - when I tagged it, the article looked completely different, had hardly any content, and had no talk page. I can only assume that someone created an article with a title that has now been changed to a redirect and tried to create a whole new article. My apologies - I would have never tagged this particular article for deletion.

If you check the page's history, it looks like I've made no edits to it, so I think my theory of someone creating a separate article is correct. --DearPrudence 03:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it happened over at 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0. Strange. Bryan Derksen 05:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's response to key posting as spam

there is no mention of this in the article, might be worthy of note Tmursch 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Did Wikipedia's reaction get any major news coverage? Probably a few bloggers, but I think most of the attention was on other sites, rather than on Wikipedia specifically. Could be mistaken, I'm going from memory, there. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was working on this article as the events were going down, and I was trying to keep up on the news sites regarding the matter, but, if my memory serves me right, not much was made about Wikipedia and the number (other than articles like "typing it in every editable place on the net" type of things). I think I remember reading somewhere that in the author's opinion, we were "doing it right" by allowing it to be posted with critical analysis and discussion, etc. But maybe I can't recall correctly. --Ali'i 14:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There indeed was some turmoil, and lack of understanding by multiple people, but little by reputable sources, and just as little that stated more than "wikipedia has now taken to banning they key as well". I don't consider it really important, but if we can find one accurate source that states something constructive about it, without giving the wikipedia case "undue weight" in the article, then i think we could use that. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Update

Has anything recent regarding this incident occured? Has the AACS recalled anything since the 45 5F code was released? 69.182.119.221 11:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

I've nominated this article for good article status. The edit war seems to have died, and the article is well-sourced and well-written. Mangojuice^talk 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

This article has passed the GA noms. A suggestion for improvement would be to make the article less "Digg" centered and if possible add a section about how this has in general influenced the internet. Also feel free to seek a peer review for further suggestions. Tarret 17:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Google cease and desist

I edited out the fact that google was asked to remove the key from the search results, because I thought it wasn't written in the letter. It is actually written, as Ali'i said, "refrain from posting or causing to be provided any AACS circumvention offering or from assisting others in doing so, including by direct links thereto...". So it's true that to comply, google would have had to censor the links from their search results, but i find the way it's written quite biased : "the AACS LA sent a DMCA notice to Google, demanding that Google stop returning any results for searches for the key". 129.199.159.122 18:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, they did send a cease and desist notice to Google telling them to stop returning search results, but I think we would all be open to a new wording as long as it is neutral, factual, and grammatically correct. :-) What do you suggest? --Ali'i 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"...demanding that Google stop returning search results which included or directly linked to the key," perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... that could work. --Ali'i 14:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

An obvious response to this crank cease and desist:

Google, Inc. has not purchased a license to the number to which you refer nor to any other portion of your copyrighted works. It would be therefore be illegal to add this number or any other portion of the said works to our software. Hence any filtering of results as mentioned in your demand is technically and theoretically impossible without violating both your copyright and the criminal provisions of the DMCA. Further we refuse any gratis licence of this number or any other portion of your works, as we do not wish the copyright of our software to be encumbered by it. Yours Sincerely, etc, etc.

121.79.12.138 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That flag

Was there any actual record of its use? The only source is a blog, and it doesn't seem to have made it, for it misidentifies the purpose of the +C0. Also, some of the claims attributed to that source are not present. --Jedravent (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Key type confusion

Someone seems to have the various key types confused and called (or put it into the article in a way that would suggest it was) a volume unique key a processing key, which are totally different things. Anyway I've corrected it and put some references. Serrin (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Digg response to "revolt"

Should this be in the lead along with AACS LA's response? It seems sensible and could be quite short. - BalthCat (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Flag colors represent fifteen bytes, not three as stated

10:48 EST, 31/01/2010

each color represents three bytes - red, green and blue...so long as you don't convert it to JPEG or GIF! SteveBaker (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the flag only has 6 colours, converting it to GIF with a decent program should not be a problem. They will easily fit even if you include the websafe palette. (Of course if you convert it to GIF you will technically have to crossreference the colour in the image with palette colour to get the correct bytes Nil Einne (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Parallel universes?

This article and High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection must live in parallel universes. There, an administrator keeps removing even links to the original post of the master key on pastebin, despite the fact that the pastebin link is given in article appearing in a couple of respectable computing web magazines, CNET and PC Magazine. What happened to WP:KEYSPAM and WP:ELNEVER here?? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

How does WP:KEYSPAM support having the link exactly? --Cybercobra (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know or care because it's a non-binding essay, but the admin removes [1] [2] the reference link (which is cited in CNET and PC Magazine) because ELNEVER does not allow links which encourage copyright violations. By that account, the ZDNet and Inquirer links used here serve exactly the same purpose, never mind the actual keys themselves, which are posted in full here. If you remove the sources per ELNEVER, as he did, then you wouldn't be able to include any key here. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/05/02/digital-rights-management-tech-cx_ag_0502digg.html
  • In Digg on 2011-03-17 10:12:51, 404 Not Found
  • In HD DVD on 2011-03-22 17:37:45, 404 Not Found
  • In AACS encryption key controversy on 2011-06-19 22:30:18, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

MKB v25 keys found

Processing keys up to MKB v25 have been published here and appear to be genuine. Obviously "processing keys for versions past 10 have not yet been released" needs to be updated, but I'm not sure whether it's best to

• Just mention the fact that the new keys have been found,
• Provide that link to the keys, or
• Quote the full list of keys in the Wikipedia article itself

Gkmac (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Easy. Remove the reference. If you don't mention new keys haven't been found, you don't ever have to update that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Free Speech Flag for Featured Picture

I've nominated the Free Speech Flag for Featured Picture.

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Free Speech Flag.

— Cirt (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

by the way

Kenneth, what are the prime factors? —Tamfang (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In Archive 1, the prime factors are given as 2⁶*5*19*12043*216493*836256503069278983442067. I have verified this in Mathematica. I will add it to the article. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Use in Linux kernel

The bytes from the key are used as red-zone values by the Linux SLAB allocator; see [3].

Don't know if this is relevant enough to mention in the article, though it's a nice example of 'publishing the key but not qua key'.

It appears to have been added by this commit on 8th May, 2007. PT 22:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

praising those websites that complied with their requests as acting in a "responsible manner", warning that "legal and technical tools" were adapting to the situation.

that's what the commie tell Hker everyday.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.203.118.107 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AACS encryption key controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090505165752/http://www.shopfloor.org:80/2007/05/03/intellectual-property-dust-up-digg/ to http://www.shopfloor.org/2007/05/03/intellectual-property-dust-up-digg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)