It’s been reported me that due to attempts to hack the encryption used on CDs, the very high prime number used as the encryption key is now illegal to possess, print, etc. Has anyone else heard this?
More importantly, if it’s true, does that mean that if I wrote a program saying
10 n = 1;
20 print n;
30 n = n + 1;
40 goto 20;
that I would eventually commit a crime?
Sounds pretty silly… but that was never a reason to keep something from being a law.
Yep, there is an illegal prime. The question of course is would any prosecutor or grand jury indict someone for sharing it. Free speech, etc.
quoting from http://primes.utm.edu/curios/page.php?number_id=953
When written in base 16 (hexidecimal), this prime forms a gzip file of the original C-source code (sans tables) that decrypts the DVD Movie encryption scheme (DeCSS). See Gallery of CSS Descramblers (and its Steganography Wing) for more information. It is apparantly illegal to distribute this source code in the United States, so does that make this number ( found by Phil Carmody) also illegal?
See here for more info: http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/glossary/Illegal.html
If you think a prime number is a clever way to hide the DeCSS code, check this out: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/
Illegal prime number unzips do DeCSS. - Slashdot
So, the short answer is yes.
Yes, but the number is 1,401 digits long, so it might take a while. 
Errors!
First, my link should read ‘Illegal Prime Number Unzips to DeCSS.’
Second, Basic programs do not end lines with semicolons. C and Java many other languages do, but not Basic.
Third, sp! fp regarding slashdot with answer! w00t! 
We should make it clear that the DeCSS does not decrypt CDs, but DVDs. CDs are, mostly, unencrypted right now.
And the legality of the prime is not clear at this point, I don’t think. It is, after all, a prime number, even if you can permute it to get a DeCSS implementation.
Some news about CD encryption: Record Label Testing CD Encrpytion System -PC Magazine
What a preposterous abuse of the rule of law. Fortunately, there is nothing, I presume, copyrighted or illegal about the number that is a factor of two of said illegal prime number. It is one thing to protect from decryption a work that consumers do not need to see, but outlawing a number? This cannot be correct.
Perhaps matt_mcl is just trying to avoid getting busted for writing a program which could aid circumventing encryption. Since it’s not a valid code in any programming language he’s aware of, he’s home free!
Every gzipped source code is some number in hexadecimal. Does the number being prime make a difference, somehow?
This was just an academic excercise by cipherpunks demonstrating the futility of security through obscurity. Their point is that everything represented on a computer is just a number, and if you try to make it illegal for someone to distribute source code, you essentially have to police the distribution of numbers.
Since everything is just a number, the argument applies not only to the DeCSS source code but to your name, the entire works of Shakepeare, and the new hit single MP3. If you say you can’t police the distribution of “numbers” then you’ve voided all copyright law. Whether or not copyright is valid is a GD all its own, but the fact is, we already “outlaw” plenty of “numbers”.
My friend who is taking a computer security course told me of his professor coming to class with a t-shirt which had and algorithm printed on the back that is illegal to transfere electronicaly.
This is just silly.
Similarly, an acquaintance of mine had a shirt that had a powerful encryption program printed on the front; on the back it said: Warning! This shirt is a munition. Which it was, such encryption protocols being (at the time) regulated as munitions in the US. Nevertheless, he had gotten aboard airplanes wearing the thing
This is an old joke in the crypto world. Back when cryptography was regulated by the DoD and classed as a munition for national security purposes, someone printed a t-shirt with the RSA algorithm in about three lines of Perl. Technically, the t-shirt was an export-controlled munition. I never tried to wear mine through customs, but, in theory, the Feds could have arrested me as an arms dealer if I had. These laws have been changed and crypto itself is no longer regulated like this.
The newer arguments are over specific lousy encryption schemes used for digital rights management, and the recording industry claims that distributing the algorithm is tantamount to piracy. There are several people with DeCSS tattooed on their bodies, making them walking acts of digital piracy.
The DeCSS code (and the infamous prime number) is an illegal decryption tool, not a copyrighted work. Violating a copyright is a civil offense. Publishing the DeCSS code is a criminal violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. I.e., you can go to jail.
Industry groups are using Sept. 11 as an excuse to get congress to pass even stranger restrictions on the First Amendment. Go to Slashdot and enter “SSSCA” into a search. Since the proposed laws are for “National Security”, you can’t even find out how your congresscritters stand on it.
You can find T-shirts with DeCSS on the back here.
(I have the old blue one, which they don’t seem to have any more.)
A portion of their proceeds goes to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Back in the day, the DoD prevented people from distributing computer code with certain types of algorithms, but said nothing about print. So Phil Zimmerman got the MIT Press to print the source code for PGP in a book, which was sold overseas.
This has got to be one of the most interesting threads I’ve read in a long time, spurring me on to much web searching and reading. Simply amazing.
Now, how much longer before we can generate hardware with a data-bus size large enough to use entire programs as inputs for numbers? (Godel… paging Kurt Godel…)
FTR, I did not mean to imply any commentary about whether DeCSS was illegal, immoral or fattening. I brought up copyrights simply to point out to DPWhite that we already restrict the distribution of some protected “numbers”. That is, the very nature of copyrights make distribution of some “numbers” illegal.
DeCSS is certainly illegal under DMCA. Whether or not it should be illegal is an open issue and, with luck and perseverance, the more egregious parts of DMCA may be changed as a result of these challenges. DeCSS has significant non-infringing use in terms of copyrighted works, and is only illegal because of the provisions of the DMCA which prohibit reverse engineering.
We do that already. We just don’t stuff the entire number into the processor at one time, but instead feed it to it in manageable chunks. In a Von Neumann computer, every program is just a very big number.