What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
62 Comments
- Terc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I think it says a lot about the US government when laws purely designed to limit what consumers are legally allowed to do with products they purchase can be bought by lobbyists for private businesses.
"That people should not fear their government, but that a Government should fear its people."
The notion that Digg could be prosecuted for hosting a number used in the encryption process of HD DVD media is absurd. This has already been an issue and other sites such as aaskeys.com and hdkeys.com, I ask you world, why?
"A government by the people, for the people"
Is there some benefit gained by the people of the United States by preventing the decryption of HD DVDs or is this a capitalist monarchy? What percentage of American citizens wanted a law to prevent reasonable use of digital media?
Fair use!
Fair use!
Fair use, I cry.
Did ANYONE other than those paid directly by the media industry want or benefit from a law to limit their freedom of what they could legally do with digital media they had legally purchased?
I propose a new law!
I would like to see a law preventing any digital media marketed and or sold in the United States from being stored under any type of encryption. THIS is a law in our best interest, a law BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE! End this capitalist *****. Corporations have no business in what we choose to, or not to do with their legally obtained products in the privacy of our own home.
Here is where the root of our problem lies, because I have no significant money to offer, no lobbyists to send to pressure the powers to be into enacting this law, it, although in our best interest, will never have a chance. It will never be heard, so I ask, where did it all go so very, very wrong? - jon_k, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Actually I work for a large web hosting firm. Part of my responsibilities is abuse. We get DCMA notices all the time that we comply with because they are deemed to have a legal basis (mainly pirated content.) The request Digg received was NOT a valid request, if our company got this request we would have denied it. A few characters on a page does not fit the bill.
I find it funny they are still rejecting new stories and deleting comments with the code -- right after the fact they said they would no longer "censor" these posts. Put your money where your mouth is Digg and stop deleting posts and new stories related to this. You said you'd stop -- so stop.
Also puzzling is the fact Digg users are all happy hunky dorey now that Kevin spoke up and they're saying "I RESPECT HIM NOW" like he's a redeemed God. - svenks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Thank God.....no key!!
- radiofrequency, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12***** the DMCA. These "compliance officer" positions are merely useless, overpaid bureaucrats that are part of a system that curbs the individual's right to free speech in favor of greedy, soulless corporations.
- davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Question about DMCA takedowns: does anyone check to see if the person issuing the takedown actually owns the copyright? I've seen plenty of fair use or seemingly mistakenly identified works taken down by claims of copyright infringement and its a load of crap. There ought to be severe penalties for improper takedowns because it screws a lot of innocent artists and consumers alike.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"I, for one, remember the early days when digg planted it's roots in the soil of the rebellion against slashdot's newly implemented moderation system."
You mean "meta-moderation", where users could moderate the moderators. Sadly, not much ever panned out with it; it still exists, but nobody really cares because good, well thought out posts still were highly rated, whereas bad, trolling posts get buried into the deep blue sea. Instead, here at Digg we see good posts that don't follow the groupthink of the particular article being buried, and spammy, often inaccurate, often deplorable posts being moderated highly. Having to ask "Why am I being dugg down?" further illustrates the problem. - AjaxDiggz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Kevin doesn't say in his "apology" or explanation or whatever that is if he's gonna reinstate all the people that got banned during that lil reign of idiocy. Is he? Why were people booted for just posting comments that DIDN'T have the hex key in it, the editors around here getting a little thin skinned? I was glad that he finally came out and said something but upon reflection, I'm still concerned about what he DIDN'T say. Comprehensive and thorough, Kevin, easy enough to do.
- g00dETH3R, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Break the law if the law is broken.
- robohoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Lol, because of that key, my deviantart has been banned. Two years of art = gone.
Oh well, time to create a new one -_- - generalloy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"The number violates the DMCA because it was not discovered accidentally, it was discovered as a willful and intentional effort to circumvent a copy-protection mechanism. (and this was obvious to anyone with even the most minimal of knowledge on the subject. A claim that it was discovered "accidentally" would be laughed out of court.)"
Why should a law cover up for DRM's inherent weakness-- that to view the video they must give you the key, they just try and hide it not too well-- and in doing so, destroy free speech? DRM is flawed cryptography. Hasn't the reaction from Wikipedia (i.e., no mention of the event at all), Digg, and the AACSLA shown that the DMCA is an unreasonable affront on free speech?
The DMCA is a vague and law with HUGE overarching effects on other issues (PRINTER cartridges, for crying out loud!) that should never have been passed. Same with the WIPO treaty that required it. - generalloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"intellectual property". It doesn't exist. As RMS would say, do you mean patents, trademarks, or copyrights? Different laws for each.
- mlfoley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Fair enough - but these people were not *repeat* offenders. Therefore, according to digg's own TOS, they should never have been banned.
- generalloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4BTW I also want to say that this is a really interesting discussion, amidst all the 09 F9 talk... :)
- Elbart, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I still fail to see how a number can violate the DMCA.
What if I have a random calculation posted on my blog, and its result happen to be one of the AACS keys.
Can I be sued because I accidentally discovered a valid key which can be used to decrypt AACS-crap?
FUBAR.
PS: Trust your technolust. >:3 - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"""How about "Fight the law if the law is broken"? Breaking the law validates it in the eyes of the legislator. Fighting the law in the legal system is more likely to be effective."""
Don't talk garbage.
Law is partly commercially owned, partly top-down autocracy, has been for years.
There are countless unjust, unreasonable or even unlawful twists in the law around at the moment which benefit those two systems. Software patents, the right to fair trial, double jeopardy, arbitrary detention for life, and so on and so on. Hell, the bilateral decision to go into wars where in one of those countries the publicly released "intelligence report" used as evidence is somebody's plagiarised phd thesis.
If you live in Europe or the USA at the moment you aren't changing jack - the suggestion people accept that proposition or do nothing is an insult to the intelligence. - Terc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8This isn't plagiarism, it's a number. Numbers CANNOT be copywritten.
If they can then let's go
0 (c) Terc 2007
1 (c) Terc 2007
2 (c) Terc 2007
3 (c) Terc 2007
4 (c) Terc 2007
5 (c) Terc 2007
6 (c) Terc 2007
7 (c) Terc 2007
8 (c) Terc 2007
9 (c) Terc 2007
A (c) Terc 2007
B (c) Terc 2007
C (c) Terc 2007
D (c) Terc 2007
E (c) Terc 2007
F (c) Terc 2007
let's go.
0 (c) Terc 2007
0 (c) Terc 2007
0 (c) Terc 2007
0 (c) Terc 2007 - ploke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3***** the DMCA indeed. the question is, is this the best way to ***** the DMCA or the best way to ***** DIGG?
- subliminalurge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8The number violates the DMCA because it was not discovered accidentally, it was discovered as a willful and intentional effort to circumvent a copy-protection mechanism. (and this was obvious to anyone with even the most minimal of knowledge on the subject. A claim that it was discovered "accidentally" would be laughed out of court.)
Posting the number violates the DMCA because it is a willful and knowing dissemination of that circumvention procedure.
This puts all posters who posted the number at risk. It, however, puts Digg itself at no risk at all because Digg is not responsible for user comments.
Or, well, it wasn't. Digg became legally liable for each and every comment that has ever been made on this site the moment they made a demonstrable effort to censor, edit, or curtail even ONE comment...
They could have been free and clear, but they're firmly on the hook now, and probably will be forever.... - Terc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well, I kinda messed that one up didn't I?
Regardless, you get the point. - Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9HaNbsIfp0
- subliminalurge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Jereome209
Dude, you *****' rock! Best new song I've heard all week! - Heembo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Get a grip, there are posts all over http://blog.digg.com/?p=74
- nathanwalker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12It's nice to see people spamming "the number" getting buried now. I think all the kids went to bed finally. I saw the frontpage with 5 stories spamming the numbers, and they were all immediately buried back down. I'm glad digg users see that we are getting our way, and making things how they should be again. You stay classy, Digg.
- Gasolinehabit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think they were still deleting stuff. I think a lot of users started marking things as spam/duplicate stories...because maybe...just maybe they were tired of seeing a number instead of real news.
- YourFreedom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Many People are taking a strong position on Freedom of Speech.
I wish people would put the same energy in to addressing an issue that will eliminate your freedom of speech altogether.
Posting a DRM code on Digg will be a thing of the past as soon as National ID is implemented. It is the same thing Nazi Germany did many years ago. The parallels are pretty scary.
Please put the same energy into posting about the DRM code and expressing Freedom of Speech issues related to it, defending your constitution and fighting those who will truly take your freedom away.
I see Kevin had the Kahonies not to censor an extremely important Digg post from a couple of days ago. See below.
http://digg.com/security/One_week_to_stop_REAL_ID_and_save_America_from_the_surveillance_state
http://www.privacycoalition.org/stoprealid/ - orangery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Rose is doing it just because he knows he better go to the court and lose some pennnies compared to what he makes off digg every month as its owner.
- ShaunO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1(that said, this does reek of DVD-CCA vs Bunner, which was eventually dropped. Once this is public, which it has been since february, it's very difficult to defend it as a trade secret. As far as I can tell, and IANAL, their only real chance of a successful prosecution would be against the original source, not a few thousand parrots on Digg.)
- ShaunO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@cynicist
Hex doesn't come into it. You can state this as binary, decimal, hexadecimal, whatever you like. it's still just a number.
But yes, it turns out you're right .. it's not a prime: it is astonishingly close to one, however ("the code" + 0x1B = a very large prime number), and factoring large prime numbers is the basis of most modern encryption methods (ie, Public Key methods).
Usually, you require only one of these primes (the public key) to encrypt, but both (private & public) keys to decrypt, which works out real nice. If you're the only person with the secret key, you're the only recipient that can (easily/reasonably) decrypt the message.
Media players throw this on its head, however. Because every player is a potential recipient, every player needs the 'secret' key. Which is why these systems never work out. Once your secret is public, you're shafted.
That these numbers are keys in a "protection afforded by a technological measure" is what attracts the attention of the "Circumvention of copyright protection systems" article of USC 17. - cynicist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its not a prime number... a more accurate description would be a hexadecimal set.
But ANYWAY, how can a set of numbers/letters be considered a device? Maybe you should look at a dictionary before doing all that research on the dmca.
Can anyone provide me a good solid reason for this to be illegal? - ShaunO, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5The confusion here is that "illegal primes" aren't a copyright issue. The "code" (it's a prime number, not a code) is a device that "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected". (17 USC 1201). Plagiarism is only one facet of copyright under the DMCA. This is circumvention .. (and as such, isn't covered by safe harbour clauses)
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4How about "Fight the law if the law is broken"? Breaking the law validates it in the eyes of the legislator. Fighting the law in the legal system is more likely to be effective.
Don't fuel their fires, take away their fuel. - cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Why should a law cover up for DRM's inherent weakness"
It is not DRM that is inherently weak, it is the methods they use to implement DRM, that are subject to
fairly easy attack using modern technology.
You mention that it is a form of cryptography. Do you remember when the US government restricted forms of encryption (above 56-key iirc) as munitions? And some people (in the U.S.) had to download browser updates from overseas locations to get 128-bit or higher secure http to work? Eventually the government acknowledged they could not stop people from wanting to use more powerful encryption for personal use, but only by the time they were already moving into more secure methods themselves.
But they had laws in place to protect their content (classified information) while they worked out the rest of the process.
The same idea applies to the DRM methods being used for HD disc content and players. The flaw is that they are trying to use DRM as a blanket solution to the possibility of media piracy, and are trying to create an artificial timeline of when one method of DRM can become obsolete and be replaced by another.
DRM might work fine if they would just limit it to what it is really good for, short term authentication and enabling secure sessions for simple transactions. But when they try to apply it as an end-to-end restriction on use or playback of content, they are basically challenging the rest of the world to work around it.
The reason DRM is covered by law now is the same as why it was covered by the DOD back then, the difference is the people trying to use (and abuse) that law are not trying to protect information that could be considered compromising to the security of a nation. Same legal foundation, similar technology, different objectives. - subliminal727, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5from digg terms of service
Digg respects the intellectual property of others. It is Digg's policy to respond expeditiously to claims of copyright and other intellectual property infringement. Digg will promptly process and investigate notices of alleged infringement and will take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws. Upon receipt of notices complying or substantially complying with the DMCA, Digg may act expeditiously to remove or disable access to any material claimed to be infringing or claimed to be the subject of infringing activity and may act expeditiously to remove or disable access to any reference or link to material or activity that is claimed to be infringing. Digg will terminate access for subscribers and account holders who are repeat infringers. - subliminalurge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6You just don't get it, do you.
If Digg let's this go, you'll never be able to come back here and read interesting stuff again.
Ever. - jakv5, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Just a crazy day.
- ThirdPrize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All this fuss just to pirate a couple of movies.
- alricsca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Am I the only one that thinks that the whole case with DeCSS where the judge ruled that source code was not free speech but was instead a form of circumvention device, needs to be readdressed? Look at what just happened. Does this not prove that even if the code can be used as part of a circumvention device as defined by the DMCA, that it does not matter because the US Constitutional protection of free speech takes precedence over this law. I for one think the original judge erred because at the time, and to be frank, people like him were just too damn ignorant of technology to know any better. What is more important, we have now had several years of legal problems caused by this ruling and a potent planet wide protest that essentially framed the fact that source code is a form of speech and should be protected.
- kahrn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7The geeks you speak of made this site what it is. Infact, digg pretty much IS (or rather, WAS until retards came along) a site purely for geeks.
If you have a problem with geeks, gtfo and never come back. - sinfony, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6You're getting dugg down because you're an idiot. As both Jay and Kevin made clear, pulling down those stories was a matter of keeping Digg from facing a shutdown at the hands the MPAA, a very real concern in this case. Digg can't provide user-driven news if it gets shut down.
- krif, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7enough with the number already.
we all know that RIAAMPAA is a bunch of idiots in control waisting money, tell that to their members instead. Hopefully that might eventually get them off the budget.
an open letter maybe? - gnawph2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dvdswg3.jpg
- cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Kevin != Digg.
He personally is not in a position to stay up all week reinstating accounts one by one.
Digg (the company and the site) has staff and (hopefully) policies in place that will allow them to address the bans and reinstatements of accounts and urls on a case by case basis. - Frybread, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Plagiarism is ok if the angry mob says so!
- darkmaninperth, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3It is a strange new world we live in. When I was a lad...we just dealt with things.
- Murrabbit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2This is honestly not all that surprising considering the fact that Dick Cheney and Don Rummsfeld were in the white house at the time. . .
I can't help but wonder if this was at all related to Operation Chaos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chaos - subliminalurge, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9Why the ***** you people digging me down?
Whether you think I'd win or lose, you don't think one drunken ***** debating another would make a highly entertaining podcast? - Frybread, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4I'm glad to see a link that goes against the voice of the angry mob. Plagiarism sucks.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1tl;dr
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7ok never mind then continue posting your numbers save the world
congrats you did it
tibets free - mrfunkeye, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2so this is what it is all about:
ùtã[ØAVÅcVˆÀ -
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 