Talk:Texas Instruments signing key controversy

Legal response to TI

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)

You'll need to contact the Foundation about that. I emailed Mike Godwin just the other day, and he said that this restriction is to remain in place per WP:OFFICE. OFFICE actions cannot be overruled by anyone on this project. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Letter from Texas Instruments About This Article:

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)

is this demand for preservation of documents founded in the law? Pohick2 (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you can use the keys to decrypt the original TI OS on the calculator.. I suppose even if that isn't your intent, it makes it possible, and is thus illegal under the DMCA. It's like if you created a cure for cancer that also copies DVD's, it doesn't matter that the original intent isn't copyright infringement, it enables it, and is therefore illegal. It doesn't matter that your intention is to cure cancer, the side effect of copying DVD's is what's illegal about it. Sure, no one wants to decrypt and disassemble TIOS, but this signing key likely has that as a side effect. Not only does it allow you to legally load your own code onto hardware you own, but it could also allow you to decrypt copyrighted content, which is forbidden by the DMCA. 24.68.241.7 (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The original OS is not encrypted, merely signed according to the EFF's counter-takedown letter. And if you read the clauses cited in the letter above, you will see that they apply only to items "primarily designed to circumvent" protection of a protected work, or that have limited non-infringing use or that are marketed as cicumventing such protection. Neither the case in question, nor your hypothetical cancer cure need fall in any of the three categories. Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

WP:OFFICE action

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

1. (cur) (prev) 04:05, 6 October 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (→References: nah fuck that)
2. (cur) (prev) 04:05, 6 October 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (→References: 2)
3. (cur) (prev) 04:02, 6 October 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (→Project: streiss ref)
4. (cur) (prev) 13:11, 1 October 2009 Mathmo (talk | contribs | block) m (→Project: clarified who "they" is)
5. (cur) (prev) 13:09, 1 October 2009 Mathmo (talk | contribs | block) m (→Project: heh, the dangers of mixing sleeping and editing)
6. (cur) (prev) 13:08, 1 October 2009 Mathmo (talk | contribs | block) (→Project: added in one more short sentence, just to include another ref. also rebalanced the paragraphs length)
7. (cur) (prev) 12:32, 1 October 2009 Mathmo (talk | contribs | block) (→Project: just working in the EFF references, I'll leave it up to somebody else to expand this. Also I've read on the forums they are taking some of them to court, but I'll wait 4 a better ref)
8. (cur) (prev) 19:08, 30 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (wikipedia dmca refd)
9. (cur) (prev) 05:52, 30 September 2009 Jesse Viviano (talk | contribs | block) (Remove redundant citation and replace it with a named citation that reuses the first citation.)
10. (cur) (prev) 16:13, 26 September 2009 Merthsoft (talk | contribs | block) m (→Project: The rest of the keys weren't found JUST by united ti, but by members in the community as a whole)
11. (cur) (prev) 01:00, 26 September 2009 Jak86 (talk | contribs | block) m (→Project: Fixed wikilink)
12. (cur) (prev) 15:09, 25 September 2009 DataWraith (talk | contribs | block) m (→Project: Missing space)
13. (cur) (prev) 01:42, 25 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (slashdot cite)
14. (cur) (prev) 01:08, 25 September 2009 81.156.19.60 (talk | block)
15. (cur) (prev) 01:04, 25 September 2009 65.43.225.212 (talk | block) (disambiguated "hacker")
16. (cur) (prev) 23:19, 24 September 2009 MGodwin (talk | contribs | block) (→Project: Corrected spelling error)
17. (cur) (prev) 23:46, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block)
18. (cur) (prev) 22:35, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (512b rsa)
19. (cur) (prev) 22:28, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) m (Quick-adding category Digital rights management (using HotCat))
20. (cur) (prev) 22:27, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) m (Quick-adding category Cryptography law (using HotCat))
21. (cur) (prev) 22:27, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) m (Quick-adding category Cryptography (using HotCat))
22. (cur) (prev) 22:26, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) m (Quick-adding category Key management (using HotCat))
23. (cur) (prev) 22:02, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (→See also)
24. (cur) (prev) 21:47, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) m (→Cryptographic keys)
25. (cur) (prev) 21:47, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (→Cryptographic keys: move refs)
26. (cur) (prev) 21:41, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (→Cryptographic keys)
27. (cur) (prev) 21:40, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (→Cryptographic keys: rm flashapp keys, which aren't controversial)
28. (cur) (prev) 21:38, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (keys open doors)
29. (cur) (prev) 21:26, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) m (mo)
30. (cur) (prev) 21:26, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (section)
31. (cur) (prev) 21:24, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) m
32. (cur) (prev) 21:24, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (smlr)
33. (cur) (prev) 21:23, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (pic)
34. (cur) (prev) 21:19, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (ref cats box)
35. (cur) (prev) 21:18, 21 September 2009 Miserlou (talk | contribs | block) (start)

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)

Until someone sends a counter-notice to the Foundation, this article is indefinitely under WP:OFFICE protection. You'll know if someone files a successful counter-notice because the Foundation will be required to restore the deleted material. Kaldari (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Oct. 26th!

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)

Um, no, do not revert a WP:OFFICE action without explicit approval from the foundation. Mr.Z-man 16:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood what is going on here. Nothing yet has been won, granted, or gained. TI, by sending the DMCA notices, has stated their position; and the EFF letter states the position of Wilson, Smith, and Cross. TI's failure to respond does not mean it is acquiescing. It merely means that it has chosen to let them make the next move. Only if TI decides to take the three of them to court will any precedent be set, and the Wikimedia Foundation—much as I hate to admit it—has no cause to relinquish the censorship of the keys unless and until they win. (The Wikimedia Foundation has shown itself to be quite uninterested in setting legal precedent.) Although, the EFF letter links to their websites; and so the Wiki page, indirectly, via the EFF, links to the keys (or will, as of 20:00h EDT, according to Duncan Smith); and they cannot easily claim good faith in censoring the EFF (especially you, Mr. Godwin). Dr. D'nar (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has stated that this article should not include the keys themselves, nor a link to the keys, and has enforced this under WP:OFFICE authority. Until they state otherwise, this will continue to be the case. Any attempt to add the keys or a link to the keys to the article will be reverted and oversighted, and the editor doing so is subject to blocking, as stated by Cary Bass in the section above. If you have an issue with this, you'll need to take it up with the office directly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply otherwise, merely that the Wikimedia Foundation would likely not change position unless that happened. I'm not trying to disagree, just point out to him that:

• the EFF letter and the deadline have not changed things;
• TI is still free to sue Wilson, Smith, Cross, and Wikipedia if the keys reappear;
• Wikipedia takes this threat seriously;
• you can't simply take the initiative when the office is involved;
• even if Wilson, Smith, and Cross win a case that may never happen, you still can't post the keys or a link to them without permission;
• attempts to do so may result in special things happening;
• the keys never belonged on the Wiki page in the first place.

At least he bothered to contact Mike Godwin.

—Dr. D'nar (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

While I myself disagree with the office action I don't think reverting it will help anyone's argument. If we merrily comply with the office action while Assuming Good Faith, and talking openly to the office members of the foundation, perhaps we can convince them to lawyer up and fight it. But otherwise, as long as the office worries, we should respect that.--

–Darkmaster2004^talk

23:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time we get together and draft a letter back to Mike Godwin. TI certainly doesn't seem to be willing to take this any further.

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)

Can we link to something that links to the keys? e.g. an appropriate Google search? Swap (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We already did. The EFF links to the websites of the people who posted the keys. And they can't very well censor the whole EFF.—Dr. D'nar (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Office action infobox

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)

I removed the message box as it seems redundant to have the same message both on this page and there; secondly, if someone does have a question about why the keys aren't present, they will do one of two things:

1. Try to add the keys, or a link to them, themselves. This isn't hard to google (for the sake of WP:BEANS I won't say how), and is something entirely reasonable to assume. On opening the edit screen, the user will be presented with this message, explaining what's going on, why they shouldn't be there, and the penalties for ignoring the message.
2. Go to this page to ask. Here we already have the big orange box saying what's going on, and every discussion on this page to date talks about this issue.

It's my opinion that someone doesn't need another box shouting this in their face, as we've covered both of the likely means of figuring out why the keys are missing. Also, presumably, anyone reading this article is here to read about the controversy, and not necessarily the keys themselves; both Texas Instruments signing keys and TI signing keys are redlinks, as are any variants in capitalization thereof.

Secondly, OFFICE actions generally aren't advertised terribly well unless the entire article is locked down (in which case {{pp-office}} is added to the top). There's no real reason to advertise this one in that manner, since the article can be edited, just not in that particular way.

Finally, please understand that there is a serious legal reason for doing all this. If the keys, links to them, or anything that could reasonably lead to finding the keys were to be posted on this site, TI could potentially present the WMF with a lawsuit. While the Foundation would probably stand a very good chance at winning the lawsuit, as we've seen from the EFF's efforts, it would be a costly victory that wouldn't aid the WMF in any way; that money could go to other efforts the WMF is supporting, including keeping these servers running smoothly. This is not done with the intention of censorship - such an aim would be entirely incompatible with a site of this nature - it is done to protect against a credible legal hazard. By not presenting the keys, we are not being dishonest. As I mentioned earlier, this article is about the controversy, not the keys. There is nothing that obligates us to present this information, nor anything to lead users to expect that the keys should be present. By adding such a box to the top of the article, we are implicitly providing them with that expectation, and the article is more likely to be edited to include the keys as a result. This is not helpful in the least.

If there is a community consensus to put such a box on the article, and the Foundation takes no mind of it, then there's not much I can do to stop it. I do still feel, however, that this is an unnecessary and potentially harmful course of action. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - In the event there is a consensus to add a box, it should be something like this, and not the box at the top of this page:

P.P.S. - I'd like to add to my reasons above that templates of this sort, per WP:TC, "are not intended as a badge of shame." The reasoning you provide above seems to indicate that this would be the primary purpose of such a message box. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected Texas Instruments signing keys and TI signing keys to the article to make it easier to find. twilsonb (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Restoring the Keys

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)

The current absence of the keys on the article is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation itself. The decision cannot be reversed by anyone on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As it says in several places on this page, contact Mike Godwin. As of about a month ago, his instructions were that the OFFICE restrictions were to remain in place; as Someguy says, nobody on Wikipedia has the authority to countermand the Wikimedia Foundation, so the keys stay off. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have contacted Mr. Godwin, and await his reply. I also am keeping this here for the time being, in order to allow for reference and others to state their agreement or arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.247.178 (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for inclusion of the keys. The subject of the article is the controversy, not the keys themselves. I see no encyclopedic gain from their inclusion. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the need. A lot of cases like this seem to revolve around "we can, therefore, we should" without any thought given to need. Getting permission from the office to add the keys is a different matter from the editorial decision of whether or not they actually should be included. Mr.Z-man 20:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we just include a link at the bottom of the article? I think that's a reasonable compromise.69.108.94.196 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We appreciate your input, but again, there is no need. However it could be argued that this could qualify under WP:ELYES, with the approval of the WMF. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

how is it different from AACS encryption key controversy where the keys lead? Pohick2 (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one, the keys here are 4 times as long and there are several of them. Before they were removed, they took up more than half the article. "09 F9" became a meme, so the number is definitely relevant there. Mr.Z-man 16:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

DMCA putback notice

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? --NYKevin @057, i.e. 00:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but as there have already been counter-notices for other websites, it's pretty easy to guess what would happen:

• A user who originally posted the content sends the Wikimedia Foundation and TI a DMCA counternotice. (The Foundation and uninvolved editors are not legally able to do this themselves.)
• Most likely, TI would not respond by the deadline - it did not respond to the EFF and the original bloggers - and then the Wikimedia Foundation would be obliged to restore the content, including keys and links. As the page has been edited since then, they would probably just lift the ban.
• The edit process would kick in and may determine the keys themselves unencyclopedic. However, direct links are more likely to be judged encyclopedic.

To summarise, the likely outcome is that the keys would stay out of the encyclopedia, but more direct links would be allowed. I'm not sure how much Wikipedia would gain. twilsonb (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Keyspam twilsonb (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone who posted the keys or a link to the keys sent a DMCA counter-notice to the Foundation, the Foundation would then inform TI, and TI would then either choose to take the counter-notice filer to court to settle the issue or they would drop the claim, in which case the Foundation would be legally required to restore the deleted information. IANAL. Kaldari (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

an alternative to having the real keys on the article?

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)

See the above discussion. It is not clear what encyclopedic purpose including the keys even serves. Whether or not we can add the keys is a different issue to whether or not we should. Mr.Z-man 14:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the controversy regarding the discovery and distribution of the keys, i think a visual representation of what a key look like would be an improvement to the article, even if it's just a random key and not one of the keys in question. --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no value to including this whatsoever. It'll be unnecessary at best (as Z-man mentioned), misleading at worst (if someone thinks they are the keys; worst-case scenario would be if "someone" is TI and they decide to sue the WMF). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need a visual representation of (basically) text? Even the RSA article doesn't have examples of full 512 bit keys. Mr.Z-man 03:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, if someone needs to see what keys look like, i am sure there are sites with examples them on them. That statement in particular could be an undue weight violation. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Content

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)

I believe the websites were previously linked to, but had to be removed due to a DMCA takedown notice from TI. Until someone files a DMCA counter-notice, the Foundation is legally compelled to remove any links to the keys (regardless of the validity of TI's claim). Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The deadline for TI to do that would have long since passed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What deadline are you referring to? Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there are only two ways out of the impasse

1. repost the keys, see if another DMCA is forthcoming and file a counter. This might risk editor/office conflict. (If the original poster won't file a counter.)
2. ask TI to withdraw their DMCA notice. Large organisations are great at telling a lawyer to spend their money, reacting to a "perceived threat" not generally so good at responding for the public good. Maybe TI would be an exception.

Without one or the other paths of action the chilling effect of the DMCA notice means that the editorial decision is moot.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

TI wouldn't need to file another DMCA notice AFAIK. The Foundation would simply re-remove the keys, and whoever had posted them could then file a counter-notice. Of course the poster would likely get blocked in the meantime for violating WP:OFFICE. Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

unecyclopedic argument is unconvincing

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:

• The Production Codes of every epsiode of the Simpsons TV show
• Body measurements of thousands and thousands of pornography actors
• Countless upon countless upon countless sports statistics
• running time, dates, episodes etc about tens of thousands of little known TV shows
• The launch time, of every satellite ever launched, down to the minute.
• Width, in hundredths-of-an-inch, of various computer cases.
• Hundreds and hundreds of things that are 14 inches in size

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 don't think anyone has claimed that the keys (or links to them) were deleted for being unencyclopedic or non-notable. They were deleted because of a DMCA take-down notice (which no one in the community has bothered to contest). But perhaps I'm not familiar with the discussion you are referring to. Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example from the history of the Playstation 3 article, which was Oversighted on March 6, 2011: "Potentially copyrighted content with no encyclopædic value. (TW))". This was not a posting of the key, this was posting of a 'flag' representation of the key, with a link to an article on a Yale law school professor's blog which had the key in it's url and article title. The 'non encyclopedic' argument is also used at Wikipedia:Keyspam. You can find further discussion at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#free_speech_flag. I'm sure other examples exist. Thank you. Decora (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree that a key would not be that notable on the Playstation 3 article since Playstation 3 is a pretty big topic, but having the TI key would probably be notable enough here. The Wikipedia:Keyspam essay is basically wrong, as the man is most certainly the culprit in the case here. So as far as this article is concerned, I don't think anyone actually shares the viewpoint you are arguing against. Kaldari (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the question. I agree its debatable whether it fits in a big article like Ps3. However, I still maintain that the 'unencyclopedic deletion' argument is very influential. This very talk page has examples of people questioning whether the TI key is encyclopedic. In a discussion about the deletion of the ps3 flag from all of wikipedia, User:Alphathon says this: "All content on Wikipedia should be notable; I'm not sure the flag is" (see User_talk:Decora#RE: non-flag additions to Playstation 3 article). The 'spam' article by its very name indicates the viewpoint; spam is by definition not encyclopedic. And yet, there are countless non-encycloedic numbers that have never been added to the spam blacklist - only encryption keys. Why is that? Decora (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Several people, including myself, have argued that above. I find the argument by the OP unconvincing as well. With the possible exception of Simpsons production codes, all of those "meaningless numbers" do in fact have an understandable meaning. They're dimensions, times, and statistics. Cryptographic keys on the other hand, are basically just random strings. All of those examples are also short. Before they were deleted, the keys took up more than 3000 bytes and 40 lines of text, and that's just for the raw keys, with no explanatory text. All of the media attention has been on the controversy from TI's actions. I would be extremely surprised if there were any significant mainstream media coverage of the keys themselves, outside of the context of the DMCA disputes and even more surprised if any of the coverage reproduced all the keys in their entirety. Mr.Z-man 01:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

-Thanks for this insight. my question is whether the principles you state here are also applicable to other key cases, or other illegal number cases (not all illegal numbers are crypto keys).

-The decision in the TI key case bans all representations of the key ("reasonably discover" clause). but in other key cases, like the HD DVD controversy, there are mainstream news articles that include a representation of the key, File:Free-speech-flag.svg.

-There is also the issue of when the set of interesting numbers intersects with the set of illegal numbers... we already have an illegal prime identified; it is interesting because it is prime, it is illegal because an illegal number can be 'reasonably derived' from it. i dont know if the prime, by itself, is encyclopedic, but it is not hard to conceive of an encyclopedia containing certain numbers with interesting math properties, that will some day be declared illegal becasue they happen to coincide with a corporations key of some sort. The same could be said of certain patterns of colors or certain arrangements of shapes.

-Another question is whether something having 'meaning' actually makes it 'encyclopedic'. such an argument would never end i fear. thanks. Decora (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

some keys are more equal than others?

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)

You're mixing several issues together, which makes it difficult to discuss. I'll try to address them individually:

• The AACS key became an internet meme. The key itself was widely posted on the internet during the controversy, including the free-speech flag. In this case (TI keys) there has been significantly less media coverage, focusing almost entirely on TI's actions.
• For DeCSS, I presume you're referring to File:DeCSS.PNG? I'm not sure what the legal status of that is, but the image includes only a portion of the code (personally I would argue that putting an image of text is rather strange).
• The PS3 flag is an ongoing matter referred to the audit subcommittee, so its not clear yet whether it has really been "banned".
• The notice at the top of this page is unrelated to issues of encyclopedic-ness, but is because of the WP:OFFICE action for this specific removal, because of the specific complaint by TI.

If the office changes their minds, then deciding whether to include the key is a normal editorial issue. Every situation is different and decided on a case-by-case basis. Mr.Z-man 03:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

-the AACS question is interesting; if something becomes widespread then the law no longer matters?

-DECSS - please see DeCSS steganography (Carnegie Mellon University) , which has dozens of representations which could 'reasonably lead to discovery' of DecSS code... all of which would need to be banned by wikipedia. additionally, i refer to the illegal number article,, there is a prime number that, when un-zipped, produces DeCSS code.

-the audit subcommittee said they cannot address questions outside their scope, like copyright matters etc. so their ruling is not guaranteed to decide anything about the copyright question of the ps 3 flag.

-and if enough of these cases are decided on a case by case basis, then a principle is formed, a body of "case law" built up? over time? i.e. if the philosophy of the notice at the top of this page is applied to illegal numbers like the DeCSS illegal prime, then it gets dragged into the idea of 'unencyclopedic' as an unintended consequence. by itself the number is random junk, but in another context it is an interesting number (encyclopedic), the idea of 'reasonable derivation' expands this to hundreds or thousands of other interesting numbers, the shorter the key, the more likely a conflict.

-thanks for the insights. Decora (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're mixing issues. The AACS keys are included in the article because the WMF office said they're okay legally AND there is a consensus that they're relevant. The consensus that they're relevant is not why the WMF said we can use them; I don't know the WMF's reasons for allowing that but not this. As I said, there is no "philosophy" behind the notice at the top of this page. The notice exists because TI sent us a DMCA notice, it is inapplicable to any other article. Wikipedia typically does not use any sort of "case law" (see WP:OTHERSTUFF for a widely held opinion on using "precedent" in deletion discussions), what happens in one article only affects that article. Mr.Z-man 04:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is any underlying "philosophy" it's probably, "All keys which are both legal and notable will be hosted." The Foundation's definition of 'legal' is pretty broad (IMO), but I can't say the same for the community's definition of 'notable' :) Regardless, if you want the TI keys in this article, you'll have to file the DMCA counter-notice before it can even be considered by the community. Any other discussion on the matter is basically just a waste of time. Kaldari (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Wikileaks's mirroring of the keys is notable, but we're forbidden from linking to it. .froth. (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The notability is irrelevant as long as no one in the community is willing to file a counter-notice. The law works both ways. In fact, if someone were to file a counter-notice, the Foundation would be required to restore the deleted material regardless of whether it was notable or not. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, the WM foundation never got any legal communications at all over the AACS encryption key controversy -- the removal and controversy in that case was purely based on speculations about legality by individual editors (and based on concerns over whether it was encyclopedic, of course, but that's a totally different issue.) The foundation got a DMCA takedown notice in this case, of course, and took the actions they felt they were legally obliged to take based on that, so until that situation changes any discussion of whether they're encyclopedic is moot. That's the primary difference. --Aquillion (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Add the keys!

Someone file a counter-notice already! This censorship has gone on long enough! --134.10.114.238 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free. You have every bit as much right as the "someone" you're referring to. Instructions can be found at Wikipedia:OFFICE#DMCA_compliance. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:10, 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:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.2 (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the keys. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I will seek to file the DMCA counter-notice, this issue has gone uncorrected for too long. The EFF's letter makes it very clear that these notices are misrepresentation, and TI hasn't actively issued these threats in years. Dcoetzee 23:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Counter-notice filed

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)

Why does firmware need to be signed in the first place?

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)

Same reason Apple doesn't let you install any software you want on the iPhone. So they can control the market - in particular, so people cannot write software for cheaper calculators that emulates the functionality of more expensive calculators. I merely speculate, however. Dcoetzee 11:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that the main purchasers of calculators nowadays are students. Students are generally limited in their calculator choices by those settings exams.

Many exams require (in theory at least) that either calculators cannot store text or that ones that can store text have their memory cleared before the exam. If you can replace the firmware on the calculator then you can bypass those restrictions and use the calculator as a cheating tool. 151.229.191.223 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The keys

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)

I came to leave this message, but Mr. Kaldari beat me.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO the TI-83+ keys are the most significant from a history of integer factorization perspective, since that factorization was the first completed and was done by an individual on a single PC. It would also show what they look like to give one of them (the others are obviously specified in a very similar manner). I'm also okay with showing all of them if people decide that's worthwhile for some reason. Dcoetzee 20:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think that linking to the keys should be sufficient, but if one should be included as an example, Dcoetzee's argument is compelling. sonia♫ 00:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that at least the original one should be present, and the remaining ones can be linked to in the references or somthing. Perhaps instead of having a whole sections dedicated to listing all the keys, add the original one immediatly under the "project" heading, with a subtitle explaining what it is (similar to how it's down with images), and add the <ref>s to the parts of the paragraph that mention how the other keys were found. But of course, i have nothing against keeping them all if others see more value in showing all instead of just the first. --TiagoTiago (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The keys themselves aren't terribly informative. 99% of readers will skim over them, and the few people to whom that information is useful can follow the references. I like Dcoetzee's idea of giving one key for an example of what they look like though. We can't very well describe in words what one of the keys looks like, and that's a legitimate thing to write about in the article. .froth. (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here due to my involvement in previous discussions; fact is, I don't really care one way or another if they're here or not. My involvement was simply as an administrator enforcing an OFFICE action. Now that it's been lifted, this page is happily off my watchlist. :-)

However, if it were entirely up to me, I don't especially see the point. A reader doesn't need to see the keys to understand the concepts of the controversy; to many they're just very big numbers that mean nothing to them. Anyone who is interested can read the RSA (algorithm) article (linked from the lede), which explains how these keys are generated. The keys themselves are only really useful to anyone seeing to crack the software on their calculator, which isn't what Wikipedia is for. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think one key as an example is fine (but not mandatory.) More than that strikes me as excessive and more likely to detract from the article than anything else, given the space they take up; but we should link to them, definitely. --Aquillion (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I like to have at least one key as a representative example. However, I was going to WP:BOLDly edit the article to leave but one key, and realized once again that all that n,p,q,e,d stuff is meaningless to me. Whoever edits the article down to one key and makes it flow should explain what those are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, done. :-) Thanks to everyone for your feedback. Dcoetzee 20:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for solving what was a thorn in our side for so long. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

Dcoetzee - thanks for inviting me here. They keys themselves are not the important thing, the important thing is that we have the freedom to post them. Decora (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I too think that showing one key, with links to the others, would be the most-encyclopedic solution. 99.20.129.181 (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)