Talk:AACS encryption key controversy/Archive 3

Key out of spam filter
It's no longer interesting to the gnatlike attention spans of the fight-the-power d00ds. So now we just have to wait for the edit wars to abate ;-p - David Gerard 22:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I had brought this spamfilter issue up with Anthere, and after this was dealt with, she concluded with: "I'll add that as of today, the office has not been served any cease and desist letter"(User talk:Anthere) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the archives: wikitech-l message by Tim Starling confirming the removal --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of opinions
Could everyone please provide a short summary of their opinion here, so that we know where we each stand, roughly, wrt consensus? We can then try to convince each other what to do :-) --Kim Bruning 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I ask readers: please don't divide these into "support", "oppose", etc - an unsorted mess is in less danger of being treated as a straw poll - David Gerard 23:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral-ish. I do find it annoying I can't just say the-number-that-must-not-be-named. --Kim Bruning 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should include it. Editors aren't lawyers, absent clear direction from the wiki foundation or jimbo, we should rely on community consensus, not vague legal threats .  R. Baley 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The number itself, in the sense of just the literal value of the key, is not interesting. It has no particular numeric qualities that make it interesting as a number, or that make this number, as a number, more relevant than any other. What might be illustrative of the controversy is a measure of how widely disseminated it was, in which case a document of that (which may include the key) would be relevant. But the text of the key is not. Demi T/C 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me after writing this that there's a case where it's highly relevant, and that's if someone sees the key (painted on the wall or in some other context) and wants to know what it means. I've created a redirect for this purpose. And since I believe articles should always make it clear why you were redirected to them, I'm going to leave the key in. Demi T/C 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is quite a strong secondary argument indeed. Since this string is now part of other original works (such as art), it clearly has value and meaning as such, and people should be able to find that trough wikipedia. I hadn't even really taken that into account so far, even thoug it had been mentioned before. Thank you for brining it up in this discussion. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * remove. The actual number means nothing, per Demi; the first two couples of letters are enough. For my money, the fact that it may be illegal to copy the whole number is enough to decide the issue: it's problematic content, and the usual approach on problematic content is to remove first and then discuss what can and can't be included. Sam Blacketer 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe the key should be included inline because it looks out of place and, as has been stated, is not directly relevant to the controversy (insofar as the actual numbers of the key are not required). However, I would not object to it being placed in a footnote so I am neutral in that regard. Will (aka Wimt ) 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion we should include the number, at least until we have received a legal threat not to do so. My opinion is that the key is not a circumvention-device, and that we should not be chilled into not naming it in this article which clearly has value (internet history wise). I think that it needs to be made clear what this key looks like to people who would like to know and are not technically savvy like the rest of us. It does not have to be in the lead, but somewhere in the article. My opinion is that we should only censor the number here if we are instructed so by the Foundation, and if that is the case I propose we create a fake 16 byte hex number and mention that this is NOT the key, but a similar number. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I would like to add that for such a number as a circumvention-device, there is no legal precedent and serious reason to doubt the claims of the AACS, especially in the unsecret state that the key has landed in now, unlike for child pornography, copyrighted images, and the DeCSS code, where clear precedents exist. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You do realise the DeCSS code's on that article ;-p - David Gerard 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. this is a larger legal problem technically than this. Altough realisticly everyone knows that there will not be another case on that ever again. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We're putting so much effort into dancing around it, it seems easier to just mention it. Needn't spam it up and down the block, but one mention doesn't seem excessive (it's long enough that more would probably be unwieldy). If anything, I'd say the article is incomplete without it; it'd be something like pi omitting 3.14... or Julius Ceasar talking about "some river" he crossed without naming it as the Rubicon. Why say "some number" when we can give the actual number? Foundation's lack of involvement seems to imply they're not overly concerned with the legal aspect. With respect to the diversity of opinions on this matter, that's my take. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * include in about a week or two or three, but include - it clearly belongs in the article, and the article is encyclopedically deficient without it. The legal hazard is zero. (The number of DMCA warnings issued anywhere after Digg is zero as well.) - David Gerard 23:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've registered to voice my view on this - don't take any special pains to either include it or remove it. If it makes sense in the content of the article to include it, do so, but don't include it for the sake of including it.  On the other hand, if someone makes an edit that puts it in, don't edit/revert it merely because it includes the string, unless there is another valid reason to do so (for example, the edit containing the string is simply wrong, or he simply plonks the string at random on the page).  Unless I have missed something, the illegality of merely displaying this number is questionable, at best, so, in my opinion, you should simply treat it as any other hexadecimal string until such time as it's legal status becomes clear. Zmidponk 23:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Awww, that's awful nice of you to register. Note that you didn't have to register to simply state your opinion. We'll listen to you either way. :-) --Kim Bruning 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless the foundation says it's illegal, it's not illegal. They're aware of the issue, had the opportunity to stop it on legal grounds, and have declined to do so.  Unless we think the foundation is utterly incompentent or otherwise not doing their job to protect wikipedia, we have to assume this evil number does not pose a threat to us.  And if it doesn't, there's no reason not to include it.  It isn't just that it's notable, it's VERY notable-- it's being called "the most famous number on the internet", probably an exaggeration, but it's so far beyond the threshold of notability, it's not even a close call.  Absent legal concern being raised by the Foundation, it belongs in the article. --Alecmconroy 23:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * include in about a week or two or three, as per David Gerard. Let the fire blow above our heads. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not including the number would clearly make this article less informative, so it should be included as long as the Foundation does not decide otherwise. Prolog 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Include the number in the article. The article discusses the number throughout, so it should be explicitly mentioned. Agreed it shouldn't be "spammed up and down the block," :-) but it needs mention. regards, --guyzero | talk 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely mention it - it's the central topic of the article, ffs. Thus it is of clear encyclopedic value, and we shouldn't go on treating it as if the elephant in the room isn't there.  Moreover, it does not violate any official WP policies and the Foundation does not consider it illegal. Konekoniku 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, until fully resolved, use first four hex-digits dot dot dot last four hex-digits ("09F9...88C0") so that it's clear what number is referred to and it can be recognized when seen elsewhere. When the full number is permitted, this short form would still be useful for referring to the number more than once. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been following the debate from the beginning, but I've held off on commenting until now. There are good arguments on both sides. There's no doubt that JzG and others removing the key were acting in what they saw as the best interests of Wikipedia. I also understand the backlash against spamming of the key; many editors were keen to avoid mob rule mentality for which Digg caught a lot of bad press. But now that the spam has abated, and in the absence of any clear position by Jimbo or the Foundation, I believe it's important to put editorial freedom ahead of vague fears about legal threats sent to third parties. Editorially, to me there's no question that the key belongs in the article. Arguments that the number is clunky or doesn't fit strike me as excuses by those who have other, better, reasons for opposing its inclusion. So I think we should include the key. Not to stick it to the AACS LA, but because editorial freedom from chilling effects should be a core principle of Wikipedia. ―Wmahan. 02:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. For those who believe the number is "clunky", I refer them to the article Lopado...pterygon, which lists the full 183-character name of some fictional dish mentioned in some ancient Greek play, so "clunky" that it had to be hyphenated to prevent the page from getting fat. Konekoniku 01:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For many of the reasons I've already said (and that have already been stated in this section) I believe the number should be included in its entirety. On the one hand, the number is of critical importance to the controversy surrounding it (afterall, it is the subject of the controversy).  At the same time, if people see the number (it's on almost 2 million webpages, so I'm sure people will run across it) and don't know what it is, they may turn to Wikipedia to try and find out.  If we don't have the number in the only article that talks about it, they'll never know and we're doing a disservice as an encyclopedic medium.  As such, the number should be both a redirect to this article and should be included in this article itself so it's clear what the number is and why it's important. --Rodzilla (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the reason for originally leaving it out (waiting for Foundation advice, not wanting to give in to keyspam), but that no longer applies; the spamming seems to have mostly died down, and the Foundation has already made it clear that this is an editorial decision. I realize that Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in free speech, but the fact is that the key is encyclopedic in and of itself. It has been published in reputable news sources, such as Wired News. The arguments to leave it out strike me as unacceptable since they subordinate the encyclopedia not to even an actual legal threat, but a potential legal threat that may never come. *** Crotalus *** 02:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am fully in favor of including the key in its entirety. When we are discussing a numeric value, we provide that numeric value, including, if possible, its exact value. We shouldn't tolerate spam, and it's good we didn't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use the number where appropriate. And in this article, it's appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing a numeric value, we're discussing the publication of a crack by Digg and others. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if that were true, the article 09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 redirects to here, and it's common sense that you should not redirect users to a certain page without telling them why they were redirected. And yes, we could certainly create a separate article entitled 09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 to discuss the number itself if you'd prefer – it's definitely notable enough – but chances are it'd probably be merged back into here anyway. Konekoniku 11:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Use the number. We have calmly debated inclusion for a while now and I feel that it's encyclopedia in it's inclusion. It's like an article about President Bush without the date he was inaugurated on. MrMacMan Talk  05:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasting my time, I know but I don't see the point. Does knowing the number serve to increase understanding of the controversy?  Not as such.  Risk: non-zero (though arguably small, since The Man appears to have moved from headless chicken mode to head-stuffed-up-own-arse); encyclopaedic benefit: negligible.  Not a difficult equation to sum. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above reasons suggested; it's the subject of an article and integral to the issue. Also; it's on many other pages, and even already on this page in the Digg screenshot. The storm seems to be over and with this included in the article, I doubt it will ever happen again. Also, DeCSS has the code in that article, and that if anything sets a prescedent, and if it doesn't this descicion should. ≈  Maurauth  (09F9) 11:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would tend to want to exclude the key, not for legal reasons, but for aesthetic, readability reasons. Some may disagree, but saying other crap exists (such as pi or lopado...pterygon) is not a valid argument for inclusion here. I would be fine with a footnote as it was in the article earlier. The legal reasons are only a trifle in this debate, as it seems we are not likely to be sued at this point. Although we do exclude things based on "potential legal threats" all the time. In the end, we'll probably have the number in the article, but I would like to see it in a footnote (or at least not muddying up the lede), because the article is not about the specific number (it's about the controversy), the number itself serves no purpose, and is only being used as a reference point. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 12:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you taken into account the ammendment statement that Demi made to his opinion ? Since his and your statement are basically 100% opposite editorially speaking. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaaand your point is? We disagree, as happens often. I happen to think a redirect is fine. SOmeone sees the number, thinks "what the hell?", comes to wikipedia, types (or actually copies-and-pastes: because only someone who thinks the number is "sooper coolz!1!! and sekrit" would take the time to memorize it) it into the search bar, gets redirected here, reads the intro, sees the number as a footnote (or "starting with 09 f9"), and understands that that is the number. The number still means nothing to 99.9999999% of people that would do that, so it's not really all that important to have it in full in the lede. Anyone who has any use of the number already knows what it is (and likely not from Wikipedia). So that's my reasoning. Demi can disagree. Mahalo, TheDJ. --Ali&#39;i 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was an attacking you -- he just wanted to know if you read another editors good opinion above. What other location do you suggest? MrMacMan Talk  13:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * E kala mai, if you thought I percieved an attack on me... I didn't. I was explaining my thoughts. I just happened to disagree with your position that Demi's second argument was a "good opinion". I think it is stretching the issue. And I already stated that I would be keen on a footnote containing the full number. --Ali&#39;i 13:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I merely intended to point out that as a "secondary argument" for inclusion Demi's comment seems to have some merit and that you seemed to assess that there is totally none where Demi did see that. That's all I intended to point out, nothing more, nothing less. P.S. I would find it objectionable if we would mark any users opinions in this discussion as "not a good opinion". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, apologies if that's how I came off. Of course his opinion is good. The more opinions on this issue, the better. I just think the conclusion he came to was not a good conclusion. He has every right to come to that conclusion, and to express it here, but I am still allowed to disagree with him. --Ali&#39;i 14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know and I myself know that's how you meant it, but such a wording might be read differently by some people --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if only part of the key was posted inline and the rest was included in a footnote, it would still be fine for the person who found it painted on the wall (especially now there is a redirect). I agree with Ali'i that the current positioning of the whole key muds up the introduction, especially since it was bolded so it stands out even more. Will (aka Wimt ) 13:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Does positioning matter as much as inclusion in the article? I really don't care, where it is -- it would seem logical to me to have it in the introductory paragraph because its so relevant to the article, but if it can't be done I'm all for putting it some place else. MrMacMan Talk  13:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue whether it should be included or excluded but sadly some of the comments I've seen in this whole debate remind me of the Muhammad image debate where some people appeared to ignore all arguments and considerations and simply want to include every single picture because they felt anything else would be censorship. This is of course silly. People should give no heed to such concerns and debate the issues rationally. Indeed if somene is so biased (and this applies in either direction), they should seriously consider whether they're able to add anything meaningful to the debate. Also, people have to be careful with comparisons. Each article needs to be treated on it's own and rather then blindly comparing articles, people should ask why an article is best the way it is and whether the same reasons apply to this article Nil Einne 16:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Include, especially per Demi's well put WP:ENC argument. The foundation not taking a stance against it, and it's sitting quite happilly in the Spanish Wikipedia. The cat is out of the bag. If wikipedia gets a takedown notice at some point in the future, well, WP:CCC and we can revisit it. I don't see the point in any further delay on the matter. -- Kendrick7talk 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was originally ambivalent about this, but I think there's little harm in including the number now. It improves the article, and it hasn't specifically been ruled illegal (if it is, it can be removed again). A few weeks ago I can see there was a strong case for banning it from the article (to prevent keyspammers), but now that's over with, I think the best arguments point to putting it in. We can't vacillate over this forever. Terraxos 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Include it. The arguments presented at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist are persuasive.  As for whether the number itself is relevant, see my "technical article request" further up the page: if our documentation doesn't explain how the number fits into HD-DVD decryption, it just means we have to expand our coverage, as is normal with newly developed articles.   75.62.6.237 06:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Every hippie who disagreed to include this key: shame on you, for I chose the right choice. UGH, seriously, how much discussion does it need when everyone knows that eventually a goddamn 16-byte key (worth the effort of a mere COPY-PASTE, possibly even short-term memory) is going to be in an article that discusses the key itself? This is soo pathetic.. --88.193.241.224 00:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am extremely pleased to see the number in the article. The identification of the number itself is absolutely the most important part of the subject. --- RockMFR 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

More media

 * report on the key referenced in a MIT lecture --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

+Decimal
Partially for illustration purposes, I also added the same key expressed in decimal. Not everyone is a computer scientist, and a lot of people might not realize that this is *really* just an ordinary number. --Kim Bruning 17:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is not a good idea. The decimal number (in decimal format rather than the 09 f9 we've all come to know and love) is not notable, and adds little to the article. If someone needs to know about hexdecimal, can't they just click on the link? The decimal value in the lede makes it even more unreadable and muddy. I request we leave it out. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the value is 13256278887989457651018865901401704640. I think a large number of people don't know hexadecimal. I don't quite understand how this would be non-notable. It is the most common number system in the world, almost everyone on the planet who can count knows it, and representing the number in a system they know explains a huge amount to people who can't read hex. (To wit: "OMG! It's just an ordinary number!") --Kim Bruning 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggested that on the mailing list too, and I think it's a great idea. Having it in hex tends to make it look (to people who aren't programmers or mathematicians anyway, I can probably read hex more readily than decimal anymore :P) like it's some exotic "secret code" type thing. Having it in decimal will make it clear to everyone reading that it's a simple numerical value. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then why not remove the hexadecimal version? If it is really so hard to understand, why have it at all? We don't have the hex versions of other random numbers all around WP. The reason is that the hex version of 1325... is notable. 09 f9 is all over the place. The decimal version is not. Having both is just redundant (especially when hexadecimal is linked right there: they can click on the link to learn how hex is just a different way to display a number). It adds little, muddies up the lede, and is redundant. Maybe we should just remove the hex version if it is fooling people into thinking the key is something other than just a run-of-the-mill ordinary number. I'd be fine with that. --Ali&#39;i 18:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the same number. There are infinite ways to write down this number. One notation happens to be common in the news, one is more commonly used in everyday life (away from the internet at least ;-)) --Kim Bruning 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I totally disagree with adding this decimal. Remember, we are writing an article about the controversy, not the number itself. Now I agree that adding the hex key may well be a sensible move given that it is important to illustrate the controversy and people may realistically recognise the hex and thus understand what controversy is being covered in this article. However, this is not the case for the decimal. Although it does pick up a about 30,000 ghits, compare that to the millions for the hex itself. Also, and much more importantly, it gets no results on Google News. So all the news sites that are discussing this controversy are not using this decimal. As such, I don't believe it can be argued that it is in any way relevant to the controversy. Will (aka Wimt ) 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The star player in this controversy is our good friend Tom Marvolo Riddle 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, better known as Lord Voldemort 0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0, or to some people : He-Who -The-Number-That-Must-Not-Be-Named. I think all these designations are valid and important to understanding the controversy, each in their own way. --Kim Bruning 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with adding the decimal as well. The intro to this article is clunky enough with one ugly long number in there, we don't need to make it worse by adding another, which is in fact simply the same number written differently. The hex number 09f9... is what the controversy is all about; the decimal form is non-notable (it's just another number) and pretty much irrelevant to the article. Terraxos 21:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't feel anything other than the hexadecimal representation should be included. This may change for some reason in the future, but I doubt it. --Rodzilla (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote the above just considering whether it should be included or not. Now that I actually looked at the article and see it included it is completely out of place.  It completely kills the lead of the article and is not valuable information.  I actually think it will confuse readers the way it is now. --Rodzilla (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And if anyone is desperate to know the decimal form of the number, they can always go read the page on hexidecimal, figure out how to convert from one to another, and work it out themselves. Terraxos 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict)That's expecting quite a lot of upfront knowing-what-to-do from people, you know. --Kim Bruning 22:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, a number is a number is a number. This number is notable because it's possible to open an AACS encrypted file with it. The exact representation doesn't matter, it acts as a key either way. It is unfortunate that the hex representation hit the news first, because it misleads people unfamiliar with hex into thinking there is something special about it.


 * The whole point of the controversy for those who are familiar with computing, is exactly that it's about just another number. Hence it is quite useful to provide the decimal, "ordinary" way of writing it, to make that absolutely unambiguously clear to those who don't know hex. The number is what's notable. --Kim Bruning 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Put me down as wanting the decimal form included. I think Kim has a good point that hex numbers seem mysterious to those unfamiliar with it.  Hell, it's probably mysterious to reporters who should be familiar with it, at least after reporting on it (how many reporters will be coming here to familiarize themselves with the topic before writing about it, probably not a few).  R. Baley 22:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that people may not be familiar with hexadecimals and not be able to convert one to another. That isn't my argument though. I don't see why people need to be told in the introduction what the hex is in decimals. The hex is relevant to the article only due to what it does and the controversy that caused, and because people may recognise that hex and relate it to the controversy. The decimal, on the other hand, is (as I have already stated) not used in any media articles on the subject at all. So the chance of people recognising it and it improving their understanding of the controversy is, in my opinion, nil. If we were writing about the hex and exactly how it works then maybe the decimal might be a sensible inclusion. But we aren't. What part did the decimal play in the controversy? It's simply the same thing in a different form, but a different form that no-one is really using. If we want to make it clear that the hex is simply a number we can quite easily do that without writing out the whole decimal. If it really must be in the article, I absolutely don't think it should be in the introduction. One very long number is too much already; two is just going to scare off casual readers. Will (aka Wimt ) 22:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral on where in the article to include it. How about making the second section 'background', moving the second paragraph there, and then moving the decimal representation to the 'background, section?  The first paragraph of the article is probably sufficient for the lead. . .R. Baley 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that as long as it's not in the lead, and really used to illustrate to people that the number is just a number, I would be fine with inclusion. But in the lead, we would be diving way to deep into the details in my opinion.  --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the current version where the hex digits are in the lead and the decimal representation is in the "background" section explaining what hexadecimal is. It brings the subject down to earth even for readers who are familiar with hexadecimal digits.  75.62.6.237 06:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason why the hexadecimal digit is not just another internet meme is because the number behind it has certain notable properties (that made it suitable for a key to begin with). So I support the number's inclusion for encyclopedic precision; in addition, the number has been noted by blogs, which is an indication that it's not merely some random fact. It's already in the article, but may as well write out my reason that I support its inclusion. Grace notes T § 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Since an editor seemed to express his concern about the correctness of the number, i took the effort to put the number trough a big-number calculator myself and our decimal value is correct as I expected. The user seems confused by the fact that one notation is in bytes and the other cumulative. For a programmer that's very logical I think, but perhaps we can clarify it even more for the average joe ? Any ideas ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the link to Hexadecimal does well enough. If a reader is confused, he/she can just click. Grace notes T § 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, how about 觹 鄂 鵴捛 塁 囅捖裀 (xī è júlǚ lěi chǎnhuányīn)? (A phrase which might happen to correspond to a certain number in Unicode/UTF-8, modulo $8000 in the letters followed by a space). Not speaking Chinese, I'm not precisely sure what that means in Mandarin, but according to Wiktionary it has something to do with surprise, barriers, and smiling in your underwear. ;) Mike Serfas 03:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yo, all. I have a question about the decimal representation. Is that big endian or little endian? Wait... DUH! Big endian. It's an odd number little endian. Why not add both? 75.70.143.81 (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because that's not correct. Translating between bases means you're reading it as a number, and numbers are read from left to right. What order the bytes may be written onto a hard disk platter is of no relevance. 81.107.154.70 (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New Format ?
I have temporarily replaced my user page with the beginning of this article (here). The beginning has been re-formatted per above discussion. In particular the lead has been reduced to a single paragraph and the beginning of the Timeline section has been moved to the newly created background subsection. Assuming there is consensus to do so, I will replace the relavent portions of this article with the new format. No info was deleted while restructuring the article (though unaffected portions were mostly not included on my page). What do people think? R. Baley 00:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good. seems like an improvement to me, based on the comments we have seen above. We still need to expand some of that background section a bit btw. especially when it comes to revoking. We now talk about the players, not about this key. But i need a tad more understanding of how this exactly works before i do that. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. . .and the same goes for me on the "more understanding" part. But I think at least there is a place to put things now (wrt background and other info), where there wasn't one before.  I also think I should wait a couple of hours before substituting to give a chance for more feedback. R. Baley 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Edited to add: I've left notes for everyone (with active talk pages) who commented in the above section.  R. Baley 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think my additions to background should give a reasonable "as simple as possible" explenation of how the system works. And the ref should be a good enough source if you need to understand it a bit better. It might still need some rephrasing or reordering of that section, but the base is pretty good this way. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the new rearrangement of the intro plus the addition of the background section is good. I'm not going to say I like the decimal number (I don't) but if it does have to be in the article then it is much nicer in a background section (as in your version) rather than clogging up the intro as it does at the moment. Will (aka Wimt ) 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good start. :-) --Kim Bruning 02:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

page protection
Does anyone know why the article is protected? It can't be to prevent users from inserting the hex number into it, since the hex number is already there. If there's not some other reason to keep it protected, I request unprotection since I'd like to edit it. Thanks. 75.62.6.237 06:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Partially it may be to prevent users from removing it, since we've had a rash of those incidents lately too. Konekoniku 06:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only semi-protected. I would not object to removing semi-protection by now. --Kim Bruning 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Go for it. It's not like we don't have enough people watching to revert nonsense when it appears. And since the spam has in large ceased and desisted, it's probably safe to unprotect. --Ali&#39;i 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should unprotect it. If we're wrong we can always re-protect it. --Rodzilla (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. plenty of people watching it. should be relatively safe. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I formally requested it be unprotected: Requests_for_page_protection (Side note... when looking at the specific link above, I thought, why does it say Clinks and Clogs, and what the heck is a Chistory?) ;-) Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 18:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously:
 * Clink: Either a prison (Clink), or an onomatopoeia
 * Clogs are either a kind of shoe, or one of several other things, apparently.
 * The history of the letter Χ χ (chi)
 * --Kim Bruning 19:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC) of course, actually '.7C' is just an urlencoded '|', but that's hardly as much fun. ;-)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Unprotected - good luck! Let us know if the nonsense restarts - A l is o n  ☺ 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Revoked / Updated key already cracked a week before release!
160.83.32.14 11:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please update the article or unprotect it to add this information!

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070517-latest-aacs-revision-defeated-a-week-before-release.html

Now unprotected / updated.


 * I think we need to wait for the disks to actually come out, before we can confirm this don't you? --Ray andrew 17:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I reworded it so that it is clear that it is a claim, rather then a confirmed fact. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be horrible if millions of people were forced to replace their players to watch new content because the keys in their original device were publicly compromised and then revoked? Consumer confidence in the format could evaporate. This could occur till the end of key space, something better came out, or (more likely) consumer outrage forced HD DVD producers to use the compromised keys to produce their new releases so they worked on older players, even though this might mean that they could be illegally copied.

There is a recent parallel in which a flood of region free DVD players forced more DMCA compliant DVD player manufacturers to provided zone unlocks for their players. This allowed most people to watch DVDs from any region. It also largely nullified differential pricing and release schemes that producers could have enforced by DVD region coding. In the same way key revocation could break the AACS LA's ability to enforce who make can make players. 121.79.12.138 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Inquirer
I tried clicking on the link for The Inquirer, and I got redirected to the front page of IT weekly. Does this happen to anyone else? Also, is it a reliable source? Andjam 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it wouldn't be a reliable source (see our article about it for more info). That said, there are lots of other sources citing the number so feel free to replace it with another one if you see fit. As far as the link not working, it does work on my computer, but if I somehow messed something up when I added it in, please do fix it! Will (aka Wimt ) 22:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, I think they are internationalizing their bussiness and auto redirecting to "local variants". Looks like they went a little over the top though. I fixed it by specifically requesting the uk.inquirer.net article --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh thanks - I had no idea it only worked from the UK - I'll have to start checking links using American proxies or something ;-) Will (aka Wimt ) 22:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a ZDNet citation for the number as well in place of the Digg one, so hopefully that should alleviate some concerns about reliable sourcing. Will (aka Wimt ) 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As predicted...
...the key is in the page. Yes, evil censoring cabal of wikipedians has bowed down to the pressure of the heroic freedom fighters of the 09-F9 Freedom League.

Seriously, were do we get an apology form the digg spammers?--Cerejota 08:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On behalf of the Digg spammers, though I am not one myself, I apologize for the reckless "ZOMG must post code EVERYWHERE!!" insanity. Some of us Diggers can get a bit... fanatical at times. When our accounts started getting banned, we decided to revolt and post the code on Digg as much as possible. This fervor spread away from Digg to other websites, specifically Wikipedia, where it's easy to post something and have dozens see it in minutes. I hope you can see why, in our insanity, we decided to spam the page. Not saying it was smart, just that it probably seemed like a good idea at the time to some. Lx45803 15:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Too much digg focus
There already is a page for Digg with a section for the controversy. This page should focus on the wider issues around the controversy rather than on digg.--Cerejota 08:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The events at Digg are central to this story. Otherwise, it blends into the general DRM controversy.--agr 12:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well digg was important, but the lead was indeed a tad to inclusive on this point I think. With the edits of Wimt it looks a lot better in my eyes. And for agr. It IS a DRM controversy, it just exploded at Digg.com --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh much as I'd like to take credit for it, it was actually Cerejota who did the trimming. I just reformatted the references a bit and removed those that were excessive (and in some cases irrelevant). I agree it does look better without the quote in the intro. The article is always going to have a lot of information about Digg in it seeing as that was what sparked off most of the controversy. Will (aka Wimt ) 14:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * People can disagree with my view, however extensive direct quotes do not belong in an intro (Avoid lengthy, detailed paragraphs). They do belong in the appropriate section, keep it there. Also language like "capitulate" is not neutral.


 * However, as to the content disagreement, if the view is that Digg is important to this controversy, then we have to rename the article to reflect this. Otherwise we are giving undue weight. There are indeed other sites involved, including Wikipedia itself.


 * Furthermore, strong focus on this controversy as it relates to Digg, belongs on the Digg page itself, not in a general page meant to discuss all aspects of the controversy. --Cerejota 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with you about removing the quote from the introduction. As far as the importance of Digg to the article, consider the references to the article and nigh on all of them mention the role of Digg in it. Therefore it is unavoidable that there is going to be a certain degree of focus on Digg in this article. Although other sites were involved, including Wikipedia, this has been covered far less in the media and indeed the situation had far less of an effect here than it did at Digg (as some articles acknowledge, Wikipedia is used to coping with spam / vandalism etc and so was in a better position to cope with the influx of key postings than Digg was). However, I don't agree that the title should mention Digg. The controversy dictated in this article revolves around the AACS encryption key; Digg's role was to trigger this controversy into a greater public view but it is not the subject of the controversy. So perhaps there is a little too much of an account in this article at the moment about the exact events at Digg. But those events played a crucial and well documented role in the controversy, much more so than events at other sites (e.g. here). Will (aka Wimt ) 17:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Template for key inclusion? Category:AACS encryption key controversy? Re-write WP:KEYSPAM?
It seems obvious to me that the overwhelming consensus is that including The Key is notable and encyclopedic, but that this must be done in a manner in accordance to two principles:


 * 1) Keyspam is wrong - The number belongs as an article title redirect to this page, mention of it, and as the title of relevant sources.
 * 2) That this is subject to the legal opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I think a small template - to be put in the talk page of relevant pages - explaining this, and naming this article (AACS encryption key controversy) as a central location for this discussion, this way we can centralize the development of consensus around this question, as consensus can change and I have noticed that some people holding on to previous consensus has lead to much debate and even a RfA.

This template would include the talk page in a category, to allow easy tracking of all of the multiple pages engaged in the controversy. It could be a modification of the existing 09F9-notice.

Lastly, I think we need to focus on WP:KEYSPAM a bit: it has become dated and no longer reflects consensus.--Cerejota 17:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * BE BOLD! --Kim Bruning 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been bold, literally! ≈  Maurauth  ( nemesis ) 18:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Created Category:AACS encryption key controversy--Cerejota 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I liked that essay better before it was, well, edited :) Once efficacious, now wishy-washy. Wikitastic! Grace notes T § 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The article suffers from recentism
There are many, many unneeded and overly specific details in this article. I suggest some of the minor details be put under the 'ten year test'. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article, not a news report. I'm particularly talking about the Digg section, but this also applies to the article as a whole too. --Android Mouse 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... what changes do you want to make? I mean... I'm not sure how you can assume this will be relevant in 10 years or not. I certainly think that Digg has a large impact on the controversy. Can you point to some specifics? MrMacMan Talk  03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A few striking examples, but certainly not the only:
 * "In a response to the events occurring on Digg and the call to "Spread this number", the key was rapidly posted to thousands of pages, blogs and wikis across the Internet.[39][40] The reaction has been likened to the Streisand effect: when attempts to censor the key were made both by the Digg website through article removal and through the internet as a whole through the use of DMCA notices, people reacted with civil disobedience and posted the encryption key en masse.[41] Intellectual property lawyer Douglas J. Sorocco noted, "People are getting creative. It shows the futility of trying to stop this. Once the information is out there, cease-and-desist letters are going to infuriate this community more."" --- that whole paragraph can be shortened into one sentence without any loss in information.
 * "As of Tuesday afternoon, May 1, 2007, a Google search for the key returned 9,410 results,[46] while the same search the next morning returned nearly 300,000 results. On Friday, the BBC reported that a search on Google shows almost 700,000 pages have published the key." --- unnecessary, this it is already illistrated through numerous other citations, describing how quickly the controversy rose to notability.
 * "(Note that this was not a DMCA section 512 OCILLA notice, as used when alleging copyright infringement, but a DMCA section 1201 notice, naming the key as being a circumvention device.)" --- informal, and is improperly placed.
 * This entire article resembles a large systematic bias. Don't get me wrong, I'm against the repressment of the key, but I feel that the viewpoints are not accuratly represented. Most of us here are very strongly opposed to such restrictions, which I think is causing a 'preaching to the choir' type article and not necessarily an objective one. While the bias may not be as obvious as some articles, I feel that the unnecessary details this article offers is bias in itself. The link I provided can more accuratly explain what I mean. --Android Mouse 03:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The "recentism' tag is silly and violates WP:NEO. The events herein described happened a few weeks ago. Of course there is no historical perspective. Any attempt to mimic one would be presumptuous. This event may be forgotten in ten years or it may be up there with the Boston Tea Party. It's too soon to tell. Our articles on current events are valued by our readers. None of the sections you list seem inappropriate. The note about DCMA sect. 512 is important because may other reports --including the printed press --get this wrong. The rapid increase in the number of hits is very much worth documenting. Yes, there is systemic bias on Wikipedia. There is in every encyclopedia, book, newspaper or any other publication in human history. If you know of other, sourced perspectives that are missing, add them. This discussion is totally appropriate here on the talk page, but the tag does not belong in the article. I am removing it.--agr 11:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, calling this recentism is a tad over the top. It's recent, and it still needs work, but slamming a recentism tag on it hardly seems necessary. Also we can't help it that it looks a tad one-sided. The other side simply hasn't responded much so far. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All the better reason to invite some with opposing viewpoints to come and check out the article. The question is where to find them? --Android Mouse 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * >>Yes, there is systemic bias on Wikipedia. There is in every encyclopedia, book, newspaper or any other publication in human history.
 * What's your point? This shouldn't be any excuse. --Android Mouse 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To prepare for a fire, it is better to collect long sticks than short ones, since long ones can be broken up into whatever size is appropriate, whereas short sticks cannot grow larger. I am not entirely convinced that the content Android Mouse has referenced is out of our scope; if this were part of the AACS or HD DVD article, a fair amount of information would have to be cut out; however, this controversy is now its own article, so some more detail should be permitted. Grace notes T § 13:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be worth noting that this article alone is already twice the size of the Boston Tea Party article, yet I haven't seen anything seriously stating that this event is some how more notable than it. Covering one issue in little detail and covering another issue in much greater detail is bias too, and one of the most common in news and media. I'd hope that wikipedia would try and rise above the current state of sensationlist news and media present to date. I'm going to go ahead and remove the few sentences regarding the google search results, since no one has contested this. It is already illustrated throughout the entire article how quickly this rose to notability, no need to reiterate, it just adds too much of a bias. --Android Mouse 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with removing the google search results. The demonstrated growth of the google search returns of the pages containing the number over a few days clearly establishes the growth of the internet community response and gives the reader a more tangible number besides "thousands." cheers, --guyzero | talk 19:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And this article is shorter than Teletubbies. The notion that articles should be sized in proportion to their importance makes no sense on Wikipedia. Editors here are volunteers who mostly write about topics that interest them and we can only include sourced information. Both factors suggest current topic will get more comprehensive coverage. I'm all for expanding other, arguably more important, articles, but the fact that they may be lacking is no reason to trim this article. Many of your recent edits are quite appropriate, but I did contest your proposed removal of the Google search info, so I will restore that.--agr 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From looking at the teletubbies article I think that could use a good trimming too. But, could you please explain why you think the google search info is relevant or needed in the article? The entire article explains how quickly this controversy rose to fame. It give many dates and references about this. Why do you think the google search results are needed? Since when has it been a gauge of popularity? If anything I think it diminishes the impact of the controversy, the references from the NYTimes alone are better indicators. --Android Mouse 19:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also a note, I think using google search results is bias in itself. Why google? No MSN, yahoo, etc? I think that is further evidence of the bias of using these results as any form of an indicator. --Android Mouse 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well actually the reason that Google results are used are that these are the ones that were mentioned by the articles in our references. I have not, as yet, read an article describing MSN or Yahoo results. I could come up with various suggestions to why that might be - one important one is that Google tends to crawl quicker and so increases can be seen sooner on Google searches than the other search engines. I don't see why it biases the article. Surely mentioning Yahoo and MSN ones would just muddy the issue. And in answer your question "since when has it been a gauge of popularity?"; well I'd say since various media sources started using it as such. Will (aka Wimt ) 19:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of popularity. The Google search results demonstrate quantitatively how fast the information spread. --agr 20:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's one in the same --Android Mouse 21:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Popularity is a subjective concept. Availability is not. --agr 22:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Through popularity comes availability. --Android Mouse 00:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason the google example is used its because a reliable source used it. Inclusion of other search engine results would be original research.--Cerejota 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Balance in WP:LEAD
In the interest of balance I put the following in the intro:

"In response, the AACS LA issued various press statements, 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, and acknowledging the user's response at Digg as "interesting".

It is sourced in the "AACS LA Response" section. If you feel my wording could be better go ahead, but please understand we must balance the intro to reflect that this is a controversy, not a one-sided event--Cerejota 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Although is it possible it could be squezed in a little farther up in the lead section? --Android Mouse 01:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Be bold! Just do it...--Cerejota 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

09F9-notice TfD
Someone has requested that template 09F9-notice be deleted. Please give your opinion in the appropiate page. I already did!--Cerejota 01:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Flash movie
This was linked from boingboing and Cory says it's good. I haven't seen it yet. Maybe some info from it can use useful in improving the article. http://uscpwned.blogspot.com/2007/05/teque5s-final-aacs-decryption.html 75.62.6.237 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we realy need so many references?
This article is drowning in its references. Can we please not have every single sentence in wikipedia followed by square brackets and numbers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.144.95.217 (talk • contribs).


 * I am sorry, but editors on Wikipedia need to cite their reliable sources so that everything can be attributed and verified. It is a policy of ours. Sorry. But look on the bright side, at least you know we aren't just making stuff up. So that's a positive. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * sure sure, references are important, for actual references, and within reason. This article has 65 references, most of them to blogs and newspaper articles.  So sure, I can verify that "someone" said something, but it doesn't exactly mean it wasn't made up. Here's an example sentence:  This sparked what some describe as a digital revolt,[7][8] or "cyber-riot",[9] in which users posted and spread the key throughout the internet en masse.

There is NO WAY that that sentence needs three references, and I'd strongly argue that it doesn't need any.


 * References are good, the more the merrier. Especially as the target of some links get removed and verifiability gets harder as time goes by.  Too much of the wiki isn't referenced enough and where some have already done the work of documenting things, the references shouldn't be removed. Plus, this article is controversial to some people and a lack of refs will ultimately only invite more argument.  As a final note please sign your statements with 4 tildas ( ~ ).  R. Baley 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that references are more the merrier, but only verifiable ones. The majority of blog 'references' aren't verifiable. --Android Mouse 01:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In general I agree, but the nature of the controversy means we will inevitably have to use blogs. However, I think we could make an effort to seek out mentions of specific blogs in verfiable sources, or us websites called "blogs" but that are well respected and subject to journalistic standards, like ZDnet et al.--Cerejota 06:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Compared to what I've seen, I don't consider ZDnet a blog at all. --Android Mouse 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

09F9-notice substitution
Davidwr in the TfD thread for 09F9-notice suggested that the tamplate by substituted by this generic template. I think there is currently consensus to keep 09F9-notice, but I think Davidwr's idea is great.

So what about regardless of the results of the TfD, we start using his suggestion? Comments?

I like this solution because it take care of the main goal of the template which is to better prepare for future memespam. It can also be used as a general anti-spam template, and helps with both newbies and with biting veterans. Comments?--Cerejota 05:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may comment on my own suggestion: Is memespam really a problem?  If it's only a problem once or twice a year, custom templates that are taken down are probably the way to go.  If it's a more frequent problem then we should definitely go generic.  I was going to wait until either the greater Wiki comminity, including those not involved in the a9f9 controversy, chimed in or I saw evidence of frequent memespamming.  Remember, the generic template I made assumes there is a specific essay written about the specific memespam.  In order to be made completely generic, someone needs to write a generic essay.  As-is,  its only real advantage over multiple templates is to keep the Templates namespace cleaner.  The question is:  Is there enough memespam to matter?  d a v i d w r 09f9(talk) 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can see this experimental template in action in a now-reverted edit of the AACS encryption key controversy talk page. d a <font color="#e35bd8">v <font color="#4156c5">i <font color="#635688">d <font color="#c00000">w r 09f9(talk) 22:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed this experimental template. The link now points to my user page.  davidwr (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rename to "AACS cryptographic key controversy"
I am proposing that the article be renamed to AACS cryptographic key controversy. My rationale is that the key is both an encryption and a decryption key, as AES is a symmetric key algorithm. Therefore it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to name the article in a manner that focuses only on encryption and not decryption, when it is used for both. The term "cryptographic key" is the most logical title I can think of. --Rodzilla (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, but haven't news sources generally refered to it as the 'AACS encryption key controversy' not the 'AACS cryptography key controversy'? I think it should stay under what it is most commonly refered to, rather than what is the more technically correct. --Android Mouse 03:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Android Mouse that we should use the more common name. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with the present title from a technical point of view. The term "encryption key" most often refers to symmetric algorithms. In asymmetric systems, the terms "public key" and "private key" are used. --agr 04:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alas, while technically correct, common usage might be better.


 * However, other pages have indeed reached other solutions. For example, there is no such thing as a DSL modem, as DSL doesn't require modulation/demodulation. Devices used to connect to DSL line are generally called "DSL modems" by the public, and by sources. Yet the wikipedia page for DSL modem is a redirect to DSL transceiver, a more technically correct usage.


 * While we sort it out I am creating as a redirect to here AACS cryptographic key controversy, and modifying the intro, as at the very least this is needed. I am currently neutral -there are merits to both- as to what should be the main article, but definitely we need to mention the technically correct format in some way.--Cerejota 12:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the DSL modem redirect I'd say that this page should be moved (with a redirect left intact) to "AACS cryptographic key controversy" --Rodzilla (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The DSL modem redirect should never have happened. The discussion on the talk page does not support it. I've requested that it be moved back. In any case, whether DSL modems are modems or not, there is nothing technically wrong with the term "encryption key" here. --agr 22:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow
You know what I just realized by checking the history ? We went 5 days without edits !!! No disputes, no vandalism. It's a freaking miracle... --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I just checked and found the same thing with the same level of incredulousness! What do those youngsters say these days? w00tz? --Ali&#39;i 14:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What can I say? We're youngsters. We spend most of our time online doing other things. Heck, it took 2 months for one of us to reply to your message. : ) Lx45803 16:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And another key found
On doom9. OTOH, who cares any more? ;-) May be relevant for a half-sentence in this article, particularly if it gets media traction - David Gerard 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah d'oh, it's in already! - David Gerard 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * half a sentence without mentioning the key itself seems due weight. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did redirect the new key here. AACS LA may wish to send a prayer to St Jude. - David Gerard 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Or beg mercy form the Geek Gods. I don't think this should be put in the article it hasn't been confirmed by a verifiable source of information we should wait it be confirmed by the AACS if there new encryption key has been disclosed or some other source.--71.170.215.85 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Reliable source" depends on context. "Arnezami" has a good track record - David Gerard 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As per WP:A, self-published sources must be used with caution, and never should be used as sources for statements about living persons. The modern fiction that corporations are "persons" may be dubious, but it holds in the courtrooms that are the primary focus of this policy.  To put it in the bluntest terms, what matters is not whether Arnezami is technically reliable, genius or charlatan, but whether his words have been found legally or politically reliable by a Publisher acting as the agent of the State in the centuries-old tradition.  Wikipedia should be relatively safe from legal action when people quote media sources, about keys that are posted to the Web in hundreds of thousands of copies and well and certainly compromised and revoked, but this one is posted only (?) 64,000 times on Google and appears only in a few minor media outlets (e.g. a May 30 article by Humphrey Cheung at tgdaily).  I think that probably this second key is on the same legal ground as the first, but as a rule, posting hot-off-the-presses links to hacker forums about newly compromised keys seems likely sooner or later to provide AACS with what they're looking for - whether we like it or not. Mike Serfas 15:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that corporations could be covered by BLP? Considering the controversy BLP is generating lately with a couple of articles on actual living persons I'd be wary about going that route. Bryan Derksen 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I haven't followed the controversy you describe. Apart from that, it seems at least as likely that Wikipedia would face legal action for libelling a corporation as libelling a person, but I'm not a lawyer.  Besides, I'm mostly using this policy to illustrate that use of self-published sources is already very limited in uncertain legal situations.  I think it's clear that if people start posting every secret code they can find in any obscure online forum, Wikipedia is headed for trouble.  There are two ways to draw the line - either by encyclopedic policy, or by legal determination.  If we go by some variation of the existing BLP policy requiring reliable sources, then we don't need to consult lawyers about every edit, we stick with the media herd, and we follow de facto law.  If we try to establish by legal theory whether each edit is OK or not, we need a lot of lawyers, they may tend to be overly bold or cautious compared to most media outlets, and we waste our time to some extent trying to understand the law on paper.  Considering that America is a country where you can get citizenship only if you can prove you broke the law, or get sent to prison for using your right to videotape a police traffic stop, the former seems advisable. Mike Serfas 03:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)