This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As per http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/coders/TI%20Claim%20Ltr%20101309.pdf I recommend that they keys be restored in the article. Kirils ( talk) 06:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
September 25, 2009
To:Mike Godwin or Sue Gardner, Designated Agent
Wikimedia Foundation
c/o CT Corporation System
818 West Seventh Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
Phone: +1 (415) 839-6885
Facsimile number: +1 (415) 882-0495
Re:Illegal Offering of Material to Circumvent TI Copyright Protections
VIA: email to Mike Godwin [mnemonic@gmail.com]
It has come to our attention that the web site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy, contains material and/or links to material that violate the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). This letter is to notify you of these unlawful activities and to demand that you remove any whole or partial reproductions of these unlawful materials in your possession custody and/or disable links to the following:
The discussion entitled “Texas Instruments signing key controversy” located at the following URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy .
Texas Instruments Incorporated (“TI”) owns the copyright in the TI-92 Plus, TI-73, TI-89, TI-83 Plus, Voyage 200, TI-89 Titanium and TI-84 Plus operating system software. The TI-92 Plus, TI-73, TI-89, TI-83 Plus, Voyage 200, TI-89 Titanium and TI-84 Plus operating systems use encryption to effectively control access to the operating system code and to protect its rights as a copyright owner in that code. Any unauthorized use of these files is strictly prohibited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy is distributing or providing links to information, technology and or means whose purpose is to circumvent TI’s technology controlling access to this work (the “Circumvention Measures”). By circumventing the technology controlling access to TI’s copyrighted work and by providing copies of and/or offering links to such technology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy has violated the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA at 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201 as well as other laws. .Accordingly TI demands that all of these circumvention measures immediately be removed and/or all links to them be disabled. We further more demand that you preserve all documents relating to any and all efforts to circumvent the technology controlling access to TI’s copyrighted works, including but not limited to all emails and other communications with any persons about the foregoing, all copies logs of every computers used in connection with these activities [etc].
Please confirm to the undersigned in writing no later than 5:00PM on September 25, 2009 that you have complied with these demands. You may reach the undersigned by telephone at (972) 917-1522 or by email at h-foster@ti.com. TI reserves all further rights and remedies with respect to this matter.
I hereby confirm that I have a good faith belief that use of the unlawful Circumvention Measures in the manner complained of in this letter is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law, that the information in this letter is accurate, and that, under penalty of perjury, I am authorized to act on behalf of TI, the owner of the exclusive rights in the TI-92 Plus, TI-73, TI-89, TI-83 Plus, Voyage 200, TI-89 Titanium and TI-84 Plus operating system software that are allegedly misappropriated using unlawful methods.
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Herbert W. Foster
Manager, Business Services
Education Technology Group
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MGodwin ( talk • contribs) 2009-09-29T04:36:20
Interesting letter. What is really bizarre here is that he is claiming copyright only in the operating systems, which are specifically sought to be removed by the hackers and replaced. Basically, though the use is noninfringing, he is claiming that because the data sought to be deleted is copyrighted, that to publish the encryption keys violates the DMCA. The DMCA is being used to protect copyrighted content when the hackers specifically want to remove the copyrighted content.
Moreover, given the clear intentions are only to replace the operating system, from my understanding, with non-TI copyrighted software, it doesn't seem like the DMCA would apply to this article. While noninfringing uses are covered by anticircumvention bars, I don't see how this is one of those prohibited uses.
US Law refrenced by Foster: "(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. "
Since the "work" is the operating system rather than the calculator, and the whole point of the article is the keys' use for non-TI copyrighted software, it certainly doesn't seem like the keys are marketed as a circumvention for protections, as the calculators themselves are not claimed to be copyrighted and the only promoted use is the accessing of these with non-TI software.
Basically it seems that Foster is trying to conflate the calculator's measures with the work's (operating system's) measures to prevent access. As copyright is only claimed in the later, while the article is addressing the former, it seems clear no work's technical measures are being circumvented by the procedures described in the article, and thus the claim, as currently stated, fails.
Would be interested if anybody else has an opinion or could correct any misconceptions here. : ) --
24.29.232.2 (
talk) 21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the signing keys in accordance with request by Texas Instruments to the WMF.
Here is a list of the article's history, for purposes of GFDL crediting
Note: Please contact User:Mike Godwin for more information about this decision. As this is an OFFICE level action, restoration may result in the loss of editing privileges. Cary Bass ( talk) 22:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
As of today, this article is no longer on WP:OFFICE 69.233.244.112 ( talk) 20:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, today is the deadline for TI to respond to the EFF regarding their DMCA claims, and they haven't. Therefore, I have added a reference linking to the keys on Wikileaks. I'll be notifying Mike Godwin about this too. Phillip A ( talk) 15:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Acquiescing to their DMCA abuse sets a bad precedent for other companies that want to censor information, namely that they can hide issues instead of fix them.— Dr. D'nar ( talk) 01:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
An edit of mine was recently reverted: 05:40 . . (-853) . . Hersfold (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 348225492 by Miserlou (talk) thanks, but that probably shouldn't be in the article itself; anyone editing the article will see it in the edit notice, and a reader doesn't care)
He posted about it on my wall, so I'd like to dicuss the issue here. The point of contention I have is that 'a reader doesn't care.' A reader ABSOLUTELY does care - firstly because they are reading an article about this particular controversy, which has extended into the bowels of Wikipedia itself, and for a more fundamental reason: they are reading a censored article. I will concede that a reader may not care that this is a result of WP:Office or that they will blocked for editing (though readers who go on to edit the page should be informed of this) - somebody reading this article needs to be immediately aware that this article has been modified because of external pressures. I believe that this is absolutely vital in keeping Wikipedia honest. I will be willing to do the legwork to create an appropriate infobox if the Administration agrees to this type of transparency.
Miserlou ( talk) 02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This page is currently under the scrutiny of the
Wikimedia Foundation Office and certain restrictions are in place regarding the content of this article. For more details, please see Wikipedia:Office actions or the article's talk page. Do not remove this template from the article while these restrictions are in place. |
Due to the lack of response from TI and the lack of a legal basis to their argument, I propose restoring the keys. Additionally, it appears that TI's current actions regarding the keys have all but stopped. It has become obvious they are attempting to prevent further distribution of these keys through inaction. By remaining silent, they remove all chance of having the keys replaced by a badly written letter or the like. After understanding the above, the conclusion is easily drawn that the supposedly neutral Wikipedia is siding with Texas Instruments. I request that in order to prevent such an accusation being made, Wikipedia kindly remove their restrictions on this article and allow the signing keys to be replaced on the page. To further this argument, I bring to light the nature of the signing keys. The keys themselves are, by their very nature, large prime numbers. According to U.S Copyright Law regarding material not eligible for copyright, section 201.1.b and section 201.1.d clearly state that "Ideas, plans, methods, systems, or devices, as distinguished from the particular manner in which they are expressed or described in a writing" are not eligible for copyright, including methods of encryption. The signing keys themselves are simply numbers that are used for encryption. In addition, it says "Works consisting entirely of information that is common property containing no original authorship," such as numbers, which no person can copyright. Material that is not under copyright, such as these keys, are free to be distrubuted however one wishes. I trust the argument has been made clear, and if Wikipedia wishes to retain its reputation as neutral, they grant permission to restore these keys. I ask that those that see sense and logic in the above argument also state their thoughts here, and add credibility to this argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sircmpwn ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
What would happen if whoever initially posted the keys sent a DMCA counternotice to the WMF? Would the WMF be legally required to lift the WP:OFFICE restrictions? -- N Y Kevin @057, i.e. 00:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
What if we had a bunch of random numbers (perhaps not so random, use the first 512 bits of Wikipedia's logo image or somthing) displayed in a box, saying somthing like "Due to legal whatevers we can't display the actual number, but it looks similar to this", with a link (perhaps as the words in the sentence that mention the lawsuit, DMCA filling or whatever) pointing to the page on ChillingEffects about the specific situation of the company having Wikipedia take down the numbers ? -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 08:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I am just now learning about this article but it seems to me that:
(A) the keys themselves are marginally encyclopedic only from the perspective of being a "historic artifact" of sorts,
and (B) what really is encyclopedic would be links to the blogs of the three websites who received take-down notices. The articles and comments which likely are on those sites would certainly be of interest to future cyber-law students studying the topic. 66.97.214.17 ( talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It looks like there are only two ways out of the impasse
Without one or the other paths of action the chilling effect of the DMCA notice means that the editorial decision is moot.
The 'unencylclopedic' argument does not convince. The views at Wikipedia:Keyspam are also not convincing. Keys, are targeted for deletion for some reason, but it does not seem to be beacuse they are 'un encyclopedic'.
Argumet one: Keys actually are encyclopedic because they have pages about them. If you have an entire page about devoted to subject X, whose very existence turns upon the existence of subject X, and that page is deemed notable and encylcopedic, then it is rather difficult to understand how a representation of subject X, itself, is somehow 'not encyclopedic'. If any subject is good enough for an article, the one would assume it is good enough for a representation.
Argument two: If the deletion of unencylopedic numbers was an ordinary practice, then keys would be deleted with the same frequency as other unencyclopedic numbers. However, this does not happen, therefore it is not an ordinary practice, therefore the keys are not being deleted for this reason.
The notion of un-encyclopedic is up to the eye of the accidental beholder. There are tens of thousands of potentially pointless, meaningless numbers in wikipedia articles, depending on the observer, for example:
etc etc etc.
At the very least, I would argue that any number that has no wikipedia page (nor page section) devoted to it, is by definition 'less notable' than a number that has those devotions. Most of the crypto keys have sections or paragraphs that either mention them, or whose existence relies upon the controvery about the key. These paragraphs frequently cite mainstream journalism articles that discuss events surrounding the keys.
But hundreds of thousands of these non-notable numbers remain on wikipedia with little or no controversy. Meanwhile, a handful of key-based articles have undergone "Office Actions" and "Suppression"/"Oversight"; each of these keys are very likely to have been discussed in mainstream news pieces, and to merit their own paragraphs or sections on wikipedia.
To truly argue that various 'keys' are delisted from wikipedia due to "non notability" you would have to prove that key-numbers have been deleted with the same frequency as other non-cryptographic non-notable numbers are deleted from wikipedia. This does not appear to be the case. Thus, the argument that keys are deleted because they are 'not encyclopedia', is therefore difficult to understand, and difficult to accept as true.
Decora ( talk) 00:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering why some keys and numbers are allowed, such as the AACS encryption key controversy and the File:Free-speech-flag.svg, and the DeCSS, while others are banned (like this TI key, and the PS-3 free speech flag / key)?
The TI Key controversy talk page notice says this:
"Under no circumstance are editors to provide the signing keys, links to said keys, or information that could reasonably lead to the discovery of the keys. Any attempts to provide such information will result in the reversion and suppression of the edits made, and the user in question may be blocked for an indeterminate length of time."
by that reasoning, all flag-representations, and in fact many various patterns of colors, are bannable offenses. any uniform variation in brightness, contrast, hue, etc of the flag could 'reasonably lead to the discovery of the keys', and therefore banned.
What is the difference between these keys whereby some are allowed and some aren't? Thanks. Decora ( talk) 02:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone file a counter-notice already! This censorship has gone on long enough! -- 134.10.114.238 ( talk) 01:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
This are the OS signing keys for different Texas Instruments calculators. The key for the TI-83 calculator was first published by someone at the unitedti.org forum in this message:
http://www.unitedti.org/index.php?showtopic=8888. He or she needed several months to crack it. The other keys were found after a few weeks by the unitedti.org community through a distributed computing project. The keys make it possible to sign your own operating system for the Texas Instruments calculators.
Texas Instruments now contacted several people with a DMCA notice to take down the keys from their websites. Some of the websites which got a DMCA notice are: unitedti.org, brandonw.net and reddit.com. One of these DCMA notices can be found here: http://brandonw.net/calcstuff/DMCA_notice.txt
Here are the three keys:
details removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.2 ( talk) 05:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
See File:DMCA counter-notice - Texas Instruments signing key controversy.tif. This letter was sent to legal@wikimedia.org. The material should be restored within 14 business days. I used the handy-dandy Chilling Effects DMCA counter notice generator, which I invite you all to try in the future if you encounter a similar situation.
Besides the principle of the thing, I think the specifics of the factorization are interesting in their own right from a research perspective, and there are several important sources we'd like to link to that happen to include the details of the keys. As such I think the risk entailed by this action is justifiable. I do not intend to push for this article to include the full details of the keys - I leave this as an editorial decision to be determined by consensus. Dcoetzee 01:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody have any idea why exactly firmware needs to be signed before it is sent to a calculator? It's obviously not just a checksum to prevent corrupted firmware from bricking the calculator, or else TI wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it. Why do they care so much about what firmware people put on their own calculators? flarn2006 [ u t c] 10:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The keys have been restored to the article as required by the provisions of the DMCA, due to the counter-notice. Now it should be decided if inclusion of the keys in the article itself is actually warranted. Kaldari ( talk) 18:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
code in cell phone apps duplicated with small bits that combine using clock tasks/calendar events (birthday) and emails or phone calls and texts even video or gaming communication with text display that after to prompt the app to start a coded journey concluding with a bot/malware/control capability that can at a law enforcement stand point create a (example) rap sheet using the CLETS interface. Mirror in real time, personal and buissness banking input strokes and pass codes in federal bank theft crime.controling credit card information from Google/Microsoft,Firefox etc. Web browsers and operating systems "EVERY" function of the tablet or cellular telephone. Allows for the advanced 3D face and fingerprint readers to be copied and used in all applications/transactions comuniations protected by the software. LosAngel90000 ( talk) 13:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As per http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/coders/TI%20Claim%20Ltr%20101309.pdf I recommend that they keys be restored in the article. Kirils ( talk) 06:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
September 25, 2009
To:Mike Godwin or Sue Gardner, Designated Agent
Wikimedia Foundation
c/o CT Corporation System
818 West Seventh Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
Phone: +1 (415) 839-6885
Facsimile number: +1 (415) 882-0495
Re:Illegal Offering of Material to Circumvent TI Copyright Protections
VIA: email to Mike Godwin [mnemonic@gmail.com]
It has come to our attention that the web site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy, contains material and/or links to material that violate the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). This letter is to notify you of these unlawful activities and to demand that you remove any whole or partial reproductions of these unlawful materials in your possession custody and/or disable links to the following:
The discussion entitled “Texas Instruments signing key controversy” located at the following URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy .
Texas Instruments Incorporated (“TI”) owns the copyright in the TI-92 Plus, TI-73, TI-89, TI-83 Plus, Voyage 200, TI-89 Titanium and TI-84 Plus operating system software. The TI-92 Plus, TI-73, TI-89, TI-83 Plus, Voyage 200, TI-89 Titanium and TI-84 Plus operating systems use encryption to effectively control access to the operating system code and to protect its rights as a copyright owner in that code. Any unauthorized use of these files is strictly prohibited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy is distributing or providing links to information, technology and or means whose purpose is to circumvent TI’s technology controlling access to this work (the “Circumvention Measures”). By circumventing the technology controlling access to TI’s copyrighted work and by providing copies of and/or offering links to such technology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy has violated the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA at 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201 as well as other laws. .Accordingly TI demands that all of these circumvention measures immediately be removed and/or all links to them be disabled. We further more demand that you preserve all documents relating to any and all efforts to circumvent the technology controlling access to TI’s copyrighted works, including but not limited to all emails and other communications with any persons about the foregoing, all copies logs of every computers used in connection with these activities [etc].
Please confirm to the undersigned in writing no later than 5:00PM on September 25, 2009 that you have complied with these demands. You may reach the undersigned by telephone at (972) 917-1522 or by email at h-foster@ti.com. TI reserves all further rights and remedies with respect to this matter.
I hereby confirm that I have a good faith belief that use of the unlawful Circumvention Measures in the manner complained of in this letter is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law, that the information in this letter is accurate, and that, under penalty of perjury, I am authorized to act on behalf of TI, the owner of the exclusive rights in the TI-92 Plus, TI-73, TI-89, TI-83 Plus, Voyage 200, TI-89 Titanium and TI-84 Plus operating system software that are allegedly misappropriated using unlawful methods.
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Herbert W. Foster
Manager, Business Services
Education Technology Group
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MGodwin ( talk • contribs) 2009-09-29T04:36:20
Interesting letter. What is really bizarre here is that he is claiming copyright only in the operating systems, which are specifically sought to be removed by the hackers and replaced. Basically, though the use is noninfringing, he is claiming that because the data sought to be deleted is copyrighted, that to publish the encryption keys violates the DMCA. The DMCA is being used to protect copyrighted content when the hackers specifically want to remove the copyrighted content.
Moreover, given the clear intentions are only to replace the operating system, from my understanding, with non-TI copyrighted software, it doesn't seem like the DMCA would apply to this article. While noninfringing uses are covered by anticircumvention bars, I don't see how this is one of those prohibited uses.
US Law refrenced by Foster: "(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. "
Since the "work" is the operating system rather than the calculator, and the whole point of the article is the keys' use for non-TI copyrighted software, it certainly doesn't seem like the keys are marketed as a circumvention for protections, as the calculators themselves are not claimed to be copyrighted and the only promoted use is the accessing of these with non-TI software.
Basically it seems that Foster is trying to conflate the calculator's measures with the work's (operating system's) measures to prevent access. As copyright is only claimed in the later, while the article is addressing the former, it seems clear no work's technical measures are being circumvented by the procedures described in the article, and thus the claim, as currently stated, fails.
Would be interested if anybody else has an opinion or could correct any misconceptions here. : ) --
24.29.232.2 (
talk) 21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the signing keys in accordance with request by Texas Instruments to the WMF.
Here is a list of the article's history, for purposes of GFDL crediting
Note: Please contact User:Mike Godwin for more information about this decision. As this is an OFFICE level action, restoration may result in the loss of editing privileges. Cary Bass ( talk) 22:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
As of today, this article is no longer on WP:OFFICE 69.233.244.112 ( talk) 20:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, today is the deadline for TI to respond to the EFF regarding their DMCA claims, and they haven't. Therefore, I have added a reference linking to the keys on Wikileaks. I'll be notifying Mike Godwin about this too. Phillip A ( talk) 15:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Acquiescing to their DMCA abuse sets a bad precedent for other companies that want to censor information, namely that they can hide issues instead of fix them.— Dr. D'nar ( talk) 01:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
An edit of mine was recently reverted: 05:40 . . (-853) . . Hersfold (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 348225492 by Miserlou (talk) thanks, but that probably shouldn't be in the article itself; anyone editing the article will see it in the edit notice, and a reader doesn't care)
He posted about it on my wall, so I'd like to dicuss the issue here. The point of contention I have is that 'a reader doesn't care.' A reader ABSOLUTELY does care - firstly because they are reading an article about this particular controversy, which has extended into the bowels of Wikipedia itself, and for a more fundamental reason: they are reading a censored article. I will concede that a reader may not care that this is a result of WP:Office or that they will blocked for editing (though readers who go on to edit the page should be informed of this) - somebody reading this article needs to be immediately aware that this article has been modified because of external pressures. I believe that this is absolutely vital in keeping Wikipedia honest. I will be willing to do the legwork to create an appropriate infobox if the Administration agrees to this type of transparency.
Miserlou ( talk) 02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This page is currently under the scrutiny of the
Wikimedia Foundation Office and certain restrictions are in place regarding the content of this article. For more details, please see Wikipedia:Office actions or the article's talk page. Do not remove this template from the article while these restrictions are in place. |
Due to the lack of response from TI and the lack of a legal basis to their argument, I propose restoring the keys. Additionally, it appears that TI's current actions regarding the keys have all but stopped. It has become obvious they are attempting to prevent further distribution of these keys through inaction. By remaining silent, they remove all chance of having the keys replaced by a badly written letter or the like. After understanding the above, the conclusion is easily drawn that the supposedly neutral Wikipedia is siding with Texas Instruments. I request that in order to prevent such an accusation being made, Wikipedia kindly remove their restrictions on this article and allow the signing keys to be replaced on the page. To further this argument, I bring to light the nature of the signing keys. The keys themselves are, by their very nature, large prime numbers. According to U.S Copyright Law regarding material not eligible for copyright, section 201.1.b and section 201.1.d clearly state that "Ideas, plans, methods, systems, or devices, as distinguished from the particular manner in which they are expressed or described in a writing" are not eligible for copyright, including methods of encryption. The signing keys themselves are simply numbers that are used for encryption. In addition, it says "Works consisting entirely of information that is common property containing no original authorship," such as numbers, which no person can copyright. Material that is not under copyright, such as these keys, are free to be distrubuted however one wishes. I trust the argument has been made clear, and if Wikipedia wishes to retain its reputation as neutral, they grant permission to restore these keys. I ask that those that see sense and logic in the above argument also state their thoughts here, and add credibility to this argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sircmpwn ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
What would happen if whoever initially posted the keys sent a DMCA counternotice to the WMF? Would the WMF be legally required to lift the WP:OFFICE restrictions? -- N Y Kevin @057, i.e. 00:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
What if we had a bunch of random numbers (perhaps not so random, use the first 512 bits of Wikipedia's logo image or somthing) displayed in a box, saying somthing like "Due to legal whatevers we can't display the actual number, but it looks similar to this", with a link (perhaps as the words in the sentence that mention the lawsuit, DMCA filling or whatever) pointing to the page on ChillingEffects about the specific situation of the company having Wikipedia take down the numbers ? -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 08:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I am just now learning about this article but it seems to me that:
(A) the keys themselves are marginally encyclopedic only from the perspective of being a "historic artifact" of sorts,
and (B) what really is encyclopedic would be links to the blogs of the three websites who received take-down notices. The articles and comments which likely are on those sites would certainly be of interest to future cyber-law students studying the topic. 66.97.214.17 ( talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It looks like there are only two ways out of the impasse
Without one or the other paths of action the chilling effect of the DMCA notice means that the editorial decision is moot.
The 'unencylclopedic' argument does not convince. The views at Wikipedia:Keyspam are also not convincing. Keys, are targeted for deletion for some reason, but it does not seem to be beacuse they are 'un encyclopedic'.
Argumet one: Keys actually are encyclopedic because they have pages about them. If you have an entire page about devoted to subject X, whose very existence turns upon the existence of subject X, and that page is deemed notable and encylcopedic, then it is rather difficult to understand how a representation of subject X, itself, is somehow 'not encyclopedic'. If any subject is good enough for an article, the one would assume it is good enough for a representation.
Argument two: If the deletion of unencylopedic numbers was an ordinary practice, then keys would be deleted with the same frequency as other unencyclopedic numbers. However, this does not happen, therefore it is not an ordinary practice, therefore the keys are not being deleted for this reason.
The notion of un-encyclopedic is up to the eye of the accidental beholder. There are tens of thousands of potentially pointless, meaningless numbers in wikipedia articles, depending on the observer, for example:
etc etc etc.
At the very least, I would argue that any number that has no wikipedia page (nor page section) devoted to it, is by definition 'less notable' than a number that has those devotions. Most of the crypto keys have sections or paragraphs that either mention them, or whose existence relies upon the controvery about the key. These paragraphs frequently cite mainstream journalism articles that discuss events surrounding the keys.
But hundreds of thousands of these non-notable numbers remain on wikipedia with little or no controversy. Meanwhile, a handful of key-based articles have undergone "Office Actions" and "Suppression"/"Oversight"; each of these keys are very likely to have been discussed in mainstream news pieces, and to merit their own paragraphs or sections on wikipedia.
To truly argue that various 'keys' are delisted from wikipedia due to "non notability" you would have to prove that key-numbers have been deleted with the same frequency as other non-cryptographic non-notable numbers are deleted from wikipedia. This does not appear to be the case. Thus, the argument that keys are deleted because they are 'not encyclopedia', is therefore difficult to understand, and difficult to accept as true.
Decora ( talk) 00:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering why some keys and numbers are allowed, such as the AACS encryption key controversy and the File:Free-speech-flag.svg, and the DeCSS, while others are banned (like this TI key, and the PS-3 free speech flag / key)?
The TI Key controversy talk page notice says this:
"Under no circumstance are editors to provide the signing keys, links to said keys, or information that could reasonably lead to the discovery of the keys. Any attempts to provide such information will result in the reversion and suppression of the edits made, and the user in question may be blocked for an indeterminate length of time."
by that reasoning, all flag-representations, and in fact many various patterns of colors, are bannable offenses. any uniform variation in brightness, contrast, hue, etc of the flag could 'reasonably lead to the discovery of the keys', and therefore banned.
What is the difference between these keys whereby some are allowed and some aren't? Thanks. Decora ( talk) 02:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone file a counter-notice already! This censorship has gone on long enough! -- 134.10.114.238 ( talk) 01:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
This are the OS signing keys for different Texas Instruments calculators. The key for the TI-83 calculator was first published by someone at the unitedti.org forum in this message:
http://www.unitedti.org/index.php?showtopic=8888. He or she needed several months to crack it. The other keys were found after a few weeks by the unitedti.org community through a distributed computing project. The keys make it possible to sign your own operating system for the Texas Instruments calculators.
Texas Instruments now contacted several people with a DMCA notice to take down the keys from their websites. Some of the websites which got a DMCA notice are: unitedti.org, brandonw.net and reddit.com. One of these DCMA notices can be found here: http://brandonw.net/calcstuff/DMCA_notice.txt
Here are the three keys:
details removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.2 ( talk) 05:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
See File:DMCA counter-notice - Texas Instruments signing key controversy.tif. This letter was sent to legal@wikimedia.org. The material should be restored within 14 business days. I used the handy-dandy Chilling Effects DMCA counter notice generator, which I invite you all to try in the future if you encounter a similar situation.
Besides the principle of the thing, I think the specifics of the factorization are interesting in their own right from a research perspective, and there are several important sources we'd like to link to that happen to include the details of the keys. As such I think the risk entailed by this action is justifiable. I do not intend to push for this article to include the full details of the keys - I leave this as an editorial decision to be determined by consensus. Dcoetzee 01:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody have any idea why exactly firmware needs to be signed before it is sent to a calculator? It's obviously not just a checksum to prevent corrupted firmware from bricking the calculator, or else TI wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it. Why do they care so much about what firmware people put on their own calculators? flarn2006 [ u t c] 10:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The keys have been restored to the article as required by the provisions of the DMCA, due to the counter-notice. Now it should be decided if inclusion of the keys in the article itself is actually warranted. Kaldari ( talk) 18:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
code in cell phone apps duplicated with small bits that combine using clock tasks/calendar events (birthday) and emails or phone calls and texts even video or gaming communication with text display that after to prompt the app to start a coded journey concluding with a bot/malware/control capability that can at a law enforcement stand point create a (example) rap sheet using the CLETS interface. Mirror in real time, personal and buissness banking input strokes and pass codes in federal bank theft crime.controling credit card information from Google/Microsoft,Firefox etc. Web browsers and operating systems "EVERY" function of the tablet or cellular telephone. Allows for the advanced 3D face and fingerprint readers to be copied and used in all applications/transactions comuniations protected by the software. LosAngel90000 ( talk) 13:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)