Illegal numbers.

[Maserschmidt]

@SiXSwordS

I guess 1 is the only safe number, no wonder it’s the loneliest.

2 is probably safe as well, since it’s as bad as one.
I’m guessing 311 is illegal because of the hate crime thing. And 69 was probably illegal in some states until 2003; the Internet Archive may still be at risk.

[njtt]

@Chronos

njtt, are you seriously arguing that people found with child porn on their computers should not be prosecuted for it? Because that’s the logical implication of your post. You say that it should only be actionable if the information is also present that the binary string is to be interpreted as a JPEG image, or whatever, but how do you think that information is stored? That’s just a number, too.

Yes, for any given bit string, there’s a hypothetical computer which would interpret it as all manner of innocuous things. But those hypothetical computers don’t exist. By contrast, the computers that interpret kiddie porn images as kiddie porn images do exist. And if a bitstring can be interpreted as a kiddie porn image, we can be more certain that that’s exactly what it was intended to be than we can be about almost anything else we think we’re certain about.

Of course I am not arguing that. In cases where people actually do have jpegs or other similar file types on their computer, even with the identifying extensions removed or spoofed, there are good contextual reasons to suspect that these might indeed be intended to be interpreted as jpegs. Just being stored as a file on the hard drive a computer that has (or can easily get) software to interpret bit strings as jpeg images, as almost all computers these days are, is, in fact, a good contextual reason. I mentioned the significance of context in my original post.

Likewise, as I recall, back in the days of Usenet (does it still exist?) people actually did sometimes post images as long ASCII strings that could be input into suitable software to produce an actual image. If you came across a post consisting of nothing but such a string in a usenet group called something like alt.sex.kinky (or, come to that, alt.art.landscapes)* you would easily be able to guess that it was intended as an image file, and probably a gif or jpeg. If you found it in comp.software you would probably assume it was a program, and run it through a different interpreter. On the other hand, if you came across such a string of characters on an ancient papyrus scroll, you would not be likely to think it represented an image, and much more likely to think it a text in some unknown language.

The discussion in this thread, however, was about whether certain numbers, or numeral strings, could (or should) be illegal in themselves, regardless of context, or in a context in which there is no particular reason to suspect that they might be intended to represent anything except the number itself, or anything naughty. I say no, it is absurd that numbers as such should be illegal. Binary files on the hard drive of a modern Windows (or Mac, or Linux) computer exist in a context where it is reasonable to suspect that they might be intended to be interpreted as jpeg (or png, or whatever) files, but this is not true of any binary string in any circumstance. Still less is it true of any decimal string (the usual way to write actual numbers), because, so far as I am aware, it has never actually been an established practice to encode images as decimal strings. (Of course, you could set up such an encoding if you wanted too, and if a very long decimal string showed up in alt.sex.kinky it would be reasonable to suspect that it might be intended to somehow encode a pornographic image).

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

*I do not recall if any of these examples were ever real names of actual usenet groups, but they could have been.

[Gary_Robson]

Hmmm. Somehow I missed this thread the first time around. Let me throw out the GQ answer:

The fuss and furor over “illegal numbers” came from a specific 128-bit hexadecimal number (09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0, to be precise), which is an encryption key used by AACS to copy-protect HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs.

When MPAA started sending out cease-and-desist letters to websites that posted this number (which enabled people to copy movies), it immediately spread like wildfire, even appearing on t-shirts. It’s a fascinating case.

[Canadjun]

@njtt

…a usenet group called something like alt.sex.kinky (or, come to that, alt.art.landscapes)*
…
*I do not recall if any of these examples were ever real names of actual usenet groups, but they could have been.

Just checked my newsreader. There is alt.sex.kinky, alt.sex.kinky.chicago and alt.sex.kinky.chicagos. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that SDMB originates in Chicago?

[Siam_Sam]

I feel this is a good time to repeat my demand for a new number, zorgat, rendered as ( and falling between 6 and 7. As yet, it remains illegal but is gaining more and more support every day.

[Darth_Panda]

@Siam_Sam

I feel this is a good time to repeat my demand for a new number, zorgat, rendered as ( and falling between 6 and 7. As yet, it remains illegal but is gaining more and more support every day.

Numerical vigilantism is no way to live.

[Irishman]

Wait, so Gary is allowed to post an illegal number here?

[Gary_Robson]

@Irishman

Wait, so Gary is allowed to post an illegal number here?

Well, sure. I’m special

Seriously, though, it may be called an illegal number, but it’s not actually illegal to post it. As I mentioned, they sell t-shirts with that number printed on it.

[Irishman]

@Marley23

It sounds pretty clear that this would violate the rules. You’re not allowed to use the board to break the law or encourage people to break the law.

@Marley23

In furtherance of breaking the law? NO. In this case it sounds like these numbers are mostly a copyright issue and the SDMB goes out of its way to respect copyrights on song lyrics, DVD encryptions, and things like that.

@Marley23

Here’s a decent rule of thumb: if I put the number in Google and find it’s on a list of illegal numbers (or codes used to decrypt DVDs and so on), it probably is one.

@Marley23

Seriously, don’t confuse SDMB rules with the legal issues with this this information. I think it’s pretty easy to conclude you can’t use the SDMB to share information that violates someone else’s copyright. I don’t think we’ve dealt with this specific issue before, but we’ve dealt with stuff like it. On the other hand the legal issues that have prompted people to say these numbers are “illegal” or copyrighted are bizarre and totally beyond my comprehension.

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:83, topic:556862”]

The fuss and furor over “illegal numbers” came from a specific 128-bit hexadecimal number (09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0, to be precise), which is an encryption key used by AACS to copy-protect HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs.
[/quote]

All bolding and underlining added. So again, I ask the question, why is it okay for Gary to post the information he posted, when Marley states that we cannot post numbers that are encryption codes?

[Gary_Robson]

@Irishman

All bolding and underlining added. So again, I ask the question, why is it okay for Gary to post the information he posted, when Marley states that we cannot post numbers that are encryption codes?

It’s pretty straightforward. First of all, the code I posted is very old news. It was widely disseminated, and the attempt to kill that particular code was very publicly squashed. That code is on Wikipedia, and that’s the first place they’d pull it if there was still a legal issue.

I’m very comfortable that the code I posted is not an issue.

[Gfactor]

Couple of additional points here:

1. As far as I know numbers qua numbers are not “illegal.” The wiki site says only that they are “claimed to be illegal.” Wiki, while frequently a good resource, tends to leave off important nuances. There probably are cases where providing a number, in context, violates a specific statute. If somebody posts a number without that context, we’re not going to start digging around to determine whether it’s a password or encryption key. We’re not outlawing math threads or hiding the Lost threads.

2. On the other hand, I agree with Marley’s deletions of Darth’s posts. This reminds me of the obscenity cases where the SCOTUS has held that a work can flunk the *Miller *test if the purveyor promotes the material in a way that panders to prurient interest. http://www.communitydefense.org/cdcdocs/obscenityman/ch6.pdf If you’re waving the number around, and asserting it is illegal, I’ll probably just take your word and remove it. I’m not going to be amused later on if you claim it’s really not. That’s not what Gary did, hence the different treatment.

3. To summarize, you may post whatever numbers you like on the board. But:

   a. If you do it in a context where it’s clear you’re providing access to something that’s protected or has restricted access, we reserve the right to remove it. Moreover, this principle doesn’t trump other rules–you still can’t post illegal information or encourage others to violate criminal laws.

   b. Don’t be a jerk.

[septimus]

I’m surprised none of you zombies have mentioned that π is suspected to be a “normal number” and, if so, contains all illegal numbers within its digits. Not only do these include all possible child porn images, but a full-length movie about a team of 17 giraffian harlots from Arcturus doing intertwining things you thought were physically impossible (and certainly wouldn’t want your children to see). If Gary “Wombat” Robson is allowed to post illegal numbers here, I’ll try it too:

• π * * π ** π ** π ** π * …