User revolt at Digg
May 1, 2007 8:35 PM   Subscribe

Total user revolt at Digg over HDDVD key 'censorship'. Every single front page post at Digg is currently a post about the HD DVD processing key, which the MPAA seems to have forced Digg to censor. A web 2.0 riot in progress, and a fascinating insight into the impossibility of censorship in a medium which routes around damage.
posted by unSane (257 comments total) 24 users marked this as a favorite

 
Wow.
posted by geekhorde at 8:39 PM on May 1, 2007


Seems a strange thing to try to stop. Stick in DNS with a high TTL and it'll live in cachers for ever. But I guess it is more about being censored on digg.
posted by lundman at 8:40 PM on May 1, 2007


And just for the record... 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0
posted by unSane at 8:41 PM on May 1, 2007 [21 favorites]


The revolution is just a click away.
posted by furtive at 8:42 PM on May 1, 2007


I for one cannot wait for this Digg Revolution to give way to a reign of terror. . .
posted by boubelium at 8:44 PM on May 1, 2007 [5 favorites]


Holy crap! That's the probably the best thing I've ever seen on that site.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:45 PM on May 1, 2007


I was confused for a minute, but now I just think it's awesome. There was a wikipedia article about this, but it's already been deleted...
posted by piper4 at 8:46 PM on May 1, 2007


eh.
posted by boo_radley at 8:46 PM on May 1, 2007


You really shouldn't post the key on metafilter--matt might get in trouble.
posted by 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0 at 8:46 PM on May 1, 2007 [303 favorites]


No Wikipedia either.
posted by tellurian at 8:46 PM on May 1, 2007


Of course it would be nice if they'd revolt about, say, torture, rather than DRM, but I do suspect this is something of a watershed. I've been sniffy about Diggrs in the past but this is encouraging.
posted by unSane at 8:46 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


Jinx piper4
posted by tellurian at 8:47 PM on May 1, 2007


I went to wikipedia to see what the hell was going on (HD-DVD is a sponsor of Digg ...) and found this on the Digg wikipedia page:
Tom Taylor[30] has said that:

...the problem lies with either the community or the editorial process. By tackling one of those, you can make your difference.

Metafilter (which predates Digg by a long way) tackles it at the community level. It’s a community weblog, perhaps similar to Digg, but with less emphasis on technology and more on culture, art and those in-between areas. They keep the riff-raff out by charging $5 (one off) for a login, but it’s free to view. It’s a small sum, but guarantees that people who want to get involved are dedicated to it, and it also makes it easier to remove trouble makers. It seems to work - I like MeFi a lot.
No I say, we are not a replacement. Go back to slashdot and digg you nerds.
posted by geoff. at 8:47 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


Chilling effects elaborates.
posted by carmina at 8:49 PM on May 1, 2007


Beautiful.*sniff*
posted by sourwookie at 8:49 PM on May 1, 2007


Why be so exclusive? The "we" thing wears thin quite often. None of us are pocketing any ad revenue from all the stellar links we post.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:49 PM on May 1, 2007


Google is, as always, your friend.
posted by unSane at 8:51 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


And of course, if you log out and disable Adblocker, guess which Google ads come through?
posted by Burhanistan at 8:53 PM on May 1, 2007


Oh man! This is the funniest thing I have seen all day.
posted by threetoed at 8:54 PM on May 1, 2007


09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0
posted by cellphone at 8:54 PM on May 1, 2007


This is really is beautiful.
posted by gsteff at 8:55 PM on May 1, 2007


This is absolutely ridiculous. What did they think would happen? Censoring obsessive nerds on orders from the MPAA? That's like taking a shit on the Qur'an in Waziristan.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:55 PM on May 1, 2007 [5 favorites]


09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0
posted by unknowncommand at 8:58 PM on May 1, 2007


what 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0 said.
posted by acro at 8:58 PM on May 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


You really shouldn't post the key on metafilter--matt might get in trouble.
posted by 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0 at 11:46 PM on May 1 [13 favorites +]


Did you actually spend $5 just to make that stupid joke? Or is this Matthowie (in which case it's sorta funny, just not worth $5).
posted by spaceman_spiff at 8:59 PM on May 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


that's $5 worth of censorable!
posted by unSane at 9:00 PM on May 1, 2007


Similarly, on Slashdot.

And I, for one, welcome our 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0 overlords.

In Soviet Russia, 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0 censors YOU!
posted by ZakDaddy at 9:01 PM on May 1, 2007


867-5309
posted by ColdChef at 9:01 PM on May 1, 2007 [7 favorites]


I've had this username since 1999. Look at my posting history, bitch.
posted by 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0 at 9:02 PM on May 1, 2007 [17 favorites]


spaceman_spiff: I've spent $5 on less. It's kinda clever.
posted by sbutler at 9:02 PM on May 1, 2007


If you make a site where people control the content, don't be mad when people control the content.
posted by chime at 9:02 PM on May 1, 2007 [8 favorites]


(anyone care to explain to me--in non-geek terms--why the big chain of numbers above (9-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0) is significant?)
posted by ColdChef at 9:02 PM on May 1, 2007


Did you actually spend $5 just to make that stupid joke? Or is this Matthowie (in which case it's sorta funny, just not worth $5).

Some people blow $5 on a drink or a lottery ticket and don't get that much gratification. Maybe it was this guy.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:03 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


ColdChef: encryption key for the newfangled HD DVDs. Means people can easily copy them now.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:04 PM on May 1, 2007


Sbutler: yeah, it made me snicker for a moment. I guess I'm just a tightwad.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 9:04 PM on May 1, 2007


10,000 geeks on 10,000 keyboards... Them primates rewriting Hamlet are jealous.
posted by Webbster at 9:05 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


Folk Music
posted by Burhanistan at 9:05 PM on May 1, 2007 [4 favorites]


120,000 people propagate decryption key for 12 people with HD-DVD players.
posted by geoff. at 9:06 PM on May 1, 2007 [21 favorites]


ColdChef: It's the encryption codes for HD DVD content
posted by slater at 9:06 PM on May 1, 2007


The significance is really not about HD-DVD at all... it's about the idea that information is now suppressible at all once it hits teh intarweb. I think that idea just took a bit hit.
posted by unSane at 9:07 PM on May 1, 2007 [3 favorites]


ColdChef: encryption key for the newfangled HD DVDs. Means people can easily copy them now.

Please dumb it down a little further for me. What does one do with this magical number?
posted by ColdChef at 9:07 PM on May 1, 2007


(Semi-self link) For some background, there's a very informative 7 part post on AACS written by Ed Felten. Part 1 is here.
posted by null terminated at 9:08 PM on May 1, 2007


So this 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0 , it vibrates?
posted by falconred at 9:09 PM on May 1, 2007 [3 favorites]


ColdChef: One waits for a geekier one to write a dirty program or codec to use with a copier. But this is all largely academic because the encryption will be beefed up, and nobody has one of these damn things yet anyways.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:09 PM on May 1, 2007


"Please dumb it down a little further for me. What does one do with this magical number?"


We're going to cut you open and tinker with your ticker.
posted by fleetmouse at 9:13 PM on May 1, 2007 [10 favorites]


I thought Digg sucked slightly more than usual today.
posted by Artw at 9:13 PM on May 1, 2007 [3 favorites]


... but HD-DVD specifications still allow new discs to issue new keys so it is a constant cat and mouse game, correct? Or is this key some sort of universal decryption key (which seems incredibly stupid given the setup)?
posted by geoff. at 9:15 PM on May 1, 2007


O Captain! My Captain!
posted by kosem at 9:15 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


I wasn't aware of this:
One thing that makes the HD DVD decryption key more attractive than the DeCSS key for DVD is the ability to create software to play HD DVDs with high definition on systems lacking HDCP support, something even commerical DVD playback software will not allow. At present, while most consumers have a monitor well capable of showing at least 720p at its native resolution, the lack of HDCP support forces the user to either use an analogue connection or be forced to watch the picture in a greatly reduced resolution.
posted by homunculus at 9:16 PM on May 1, 2007 [3 favorites]


Wow, if this isn't the silliest thing I've ever seen. Laziest vigilantes ever. "Dude, I clicked the digg button like at least 34 times. I'm fighting the good fight!"
posted by Ekim Neems at 9:17 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


> "Please dumb it down a little further for me. What does one do with this magical number?"

Wired has a pretty straightforward post on what the number represents, as well as "implementations" for OSX and Windows.

Never been a huge digg fan, but this is pretty fascinating.
posted by churl at 9:19 PM on May 1, 2007


Burhanistan; Isn't this significant precisely because you can't update the encryption algorithm or change the keys because of the way the system is physically implemented? It's a stupid way to use encryption - delivering all of the components to the user and just hoping that the secret isn't divulged.

You can't revoke the key without causing a massive amount of already-produced media to become unplayable. At least, that's my understanding of the issue, which is probably wrong.
posted by odinsdream at 9:19 PM on May 1, 2007


but HD-DVD specifications still allow new discs to issue new keys so it is a constant cat and mouse game,

How do older hardware units get the new decryption keys?
posted by fleetmouse at 9:20 PM on May 1, 2007


Laziest vigilantes ever.

That's the whole point. You realise that, right? Right?

Keep thinking about it until you do.
posted by unSane at 9:20 PM on May 1, 2007 [3 favorites]


I must be a fun-hating old man, because this sounds like a perfectly reasonable justification to me.

If I ran that site I'd block and ban every last one of the fuckers.
posted by Artw at 9:20 PM on May 1, 2007


ColdChef, imagine you wrote a sensitive document, then used an encryption program to encrypt it with a unique, private key.

Then you gave your three closest relatives copies of that unique, private key so that they could read your sensitive document. Nobody else could read it, because they don't have your unique, private key.

Of course, they could get hold of the encrypted document and view the encrypted contents -- after all, text decrypters are easy to write in just a few lines of code -- but it would look like garbage. The contents of that document are theirs for the taking, except that without the unique, encrypted key, they can't decrypt it.

Then one day someone finds a piece of paper on which one of your relatives jotted down the key, and posts it to the Internet. Voila! Anyone who finds that key on the internet can use it to decrypt your sensitive document and read the contents. Once they can read it, they can distribute it to their heart's content, and everyone can read it (even without the key, because it's already decrypted.)

Now, in this case, the MPAA is you, the various makers of DVD playback hardware and software are your three closest relatives, and your sensitive document is every single encrypted HD-DVD out there that you can borrow, rent or purchase. And, as with text decrypting software, it's easy for a programmer to write an HD-DVD decrypter in just a few lines of code -- getting the key is the hard part.

Does that clear it up?
posted by davejay at 9:20 PM on May 1, 2007 [5 favorites]


So this 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0 , it vibrates?

Ok, this comment is offensive and should be removed.
posted by well_balanced at 9:20 PM on May 1, 2007


Also, why are people acting as if they've uncovered some huge conspiracy with Digg? It's a business. Did these people really think that it was totally user-generated? Didn't someone have to write the algorithm?
posted by Ekim Neems at 9:21 PM on May 1, 2007


I made a post a little while ago on my blog after I first discovered it (mostly so I could remember it happened years down the line when people ask me for examples of community revolt). It sort of gives the run down of the story.
posted by mathowie at 9:21 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


"Dude, I clicked the digg button like at least 34 times. I'm fighting the good fight!"

So Much To Protest, So Little Time (MP3)
posted by scottreynen at 9:21 PM on May 1, 2007


How do older hardware units get the new decryption keys?

That's a good question! After all, you can't just encrypt the new key, because the player would need the old key to decrypt it, and since we all have the old key now, we can decrypt and obtain the new key as well.

I would guess -- and it is a guess -- that the number is embedded as information on the disc in a "hidden" place -- that is, it's there, but they don't publish where, and they hope nobody will find it.

Of course, if that's the case, somebody will find it sooner or later.
posted by davejay at 9:23 PM on May 1, 2007


Odinsdream: I don't know, actually. It will be interesting to see how the Zune-ish set of legally minded corporate executives will react to this.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:23 PM on May 1, 2007


So can anyone explain the likely practical impact of this? The studios certainly can't keep using this key, but there are some players out on the market. Can their firmware be updated somehow, like as a side effect of playing newly released discs? Are the studios going to change the key and offer free replacements to the owners of existing players? Are all the studios going to switch to Blu-ray? Is there even any point to changing the key, or could the techniques used to break this one be used to break others too?
posted by gsteff at 9:24 PM on May 1, 2007


Google for "09 F9" now is all you need.
posted by unSane at 9:25 PM on May 1, 2007


The crazy thing is, how the hell would you ever even use that number?

And if it's like a DVD-CSS key, it can simply be disabled on future disks, and thus rendered useless. That said I enjoy the "riot"
posted by delmoi at 9:28 PM on May 1, 2007


Okay going over this again (I saw it on doom9 when it was first cracked), the following seems likely to take place:

(1) Invalidate keys for faulty software. Issue software patch.
(2) All movies already released can be copied
(3) All future movies will need new processing key in order to be copied

Isn't that right? Looks to be no big deal, and looks like to be a pain the ass to users to always find these keys and distribute them for whenever the movie industry decides to roll-over a new set of processing keys. It will never be a 100% fool proof plan but it looks to be much more labor intensive than my 2-3 clicks and I have a DVD backup.
posted by geoff. at 9:29 PM on May 1, 2007


I must be a fun-hating old man, because this sounds like a perfectly reasonable justification to me.

Er, is that where you meant to link? Because it's an article about a guy who had a bad reaction and almost died during a drug trial.
posted by davejay at 9:29 PM on May 1, 2007


I found this here.
Freaking awesome.

░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░09░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░F9░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░11░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░02░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░9D░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░74░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▐▌░░
░░E3░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░5B░░░▐▌░░
░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░████░
░░░D8░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒░░░41░░░██░░
░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒██▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒██▒░░░░░░░░██░░
░░░56░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░██░░
░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████████░░
░░░░░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░C5░░░░░
░░░░██░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
░░██░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
░░██░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░63░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░56░░░░
░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██░░░░██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░88░░░░░░░░░██████░░░░██████░░░░░░░░░░C0░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
posted by dr. moot at 9:29 PM on May 1, 2007 [22 favorites]


looking forward to the process of patching all those HD DVD players, and doing it again when the next key is revealed using the same method, and so on, and so on.
posted by unSane at 9:30 PM on May 1, 2007


Well this is a fascinating turn of events. I can hear the people marching arm in arm to "We Shall Overcome" right now [with proper royalties going to ASCAP, of course].
posted by yeti at 9:31 PM on May 1, 2007


The crazy thing is, how the hell would you ever even use that number?

And if it's like a DVD-CSS key, it can simply be disabled on future disks, and thus rendered useless. That said I enjoy the "riot"


Using the number is easy -- it is in fact like a DVD-CSS type situation -- and a key (no pun intended) takeaway is this: if they got the key once, they can do it again. Just do it every few years, and get hundreds of new DVDs at your disposal to rent for a few bucks, copy, and keep for a lifetime (if you're so inclined.)

But, again, the real story is about how hard it is to censor content on a site where content is primarily user-generated, when you don't like what the users are generating.
posted by davejay at 9:32 PM on May 1, 2007


Does that clear it up?

Very much so. Thank you.
posted by ColdChef at 9:32 PM on May 1, 2007


09 s9 11 02 9q 74 r3 5o q8 41 56 p5 63 56 88 p0 - rot13
posted by IronWolve at 9:32 PM on May 1, 2007


@unSanity: The difference being, these vigilantes aren't actually doing anything but preaching to the choir. And they act surprised as if they didn't know Digg was a business and *gasp* had sponsors! The nerve of them!

But honestly, wouldn't it be more constructive to just get your information elsewhere? As if they would've never found it without going to Digg. The best part is that we have the right to choose what sites to read and what not to read. So you know Digg won't 'stand up for you rights (or whatever)' when a giant association with tons of money/power threatens to sue them. So don't visit the site anymore.

The free speech part comes into play when Digg hands over the information of their users and the MPAA starts serving them up lawsuits directly. Then I'd start to get a little worried.
posted by Ekim Neems at 9:32 PM on May 1, 2007


Using the number is easy -- it is in fact like a DVD-CSS type situation -- and a key (no pun intended) takeaway is this: if they got the key once, they can do it again. Just do it every few years, and get hundreds of new DVDs at your disposal to rent for a few bucks, copy, and keep for a lifetime (if you're so inclined.)

Interesting. Software will always be hackable, and I suppose that really dedicated (or smart and bored) people will be able to break any random hardware to extract the key the same way that the playstation was hacked.
posted by delmoi at 9:34 PM on May 1, 2007


Hrm. I dunno. Given the size of the key, I say I just register a couple of DNS entries in IPv6 space and be done with it. Concatenate IP addresses and enjoy!

There's probably some technical limitation preventing it, but it's nice to think about.
posted by adipocere at 9:35 PM on May 1, 2007


@unSanity: The difference being, these vigilantes aren't actually doing anything but preaching to the choir. And they act surprised as if they didn't know Digg was a business and *gasp* had sponsors! The nerve of them!

The problem is that there is a finite number of ways to communicate, and all of them involve business at some level. So if all business decide to stop allowing a certain kind of speech, that speech becomes impossible.

Allowing for-profit corporations to decide what can and can't be said strikes all sorts of problems.
posted by delmoi at 9:36 PM on May 1, 2007 [5 favorites]


That was enjoyable.
posted by serazin at 9:36 PM on May 1, 2007


I made a post a little while ago on my blog after I first discovered it (mostly so I could remember it happened years down the line when people ask me for examples of community revolt).

Total derail, but do you have any other stories of online community user revolt on file? I'd be interested to learn about any other OCURences.
posted by carsonb at 9:39 PM on May 1, 2007


@unSanity: The difference being, these vigilantes aren't actually doing anything but preaching to the choir. And they act surprised as if they didn't know Digg was a business and *gasp* had sponsors! The nerve of them!

What they are proving is that censorship is not a reliable mechanism in the age of the internet. It may work, or it may not, but you cannot rely on it. That is a sea change.
posted by unSane at 9:39 PM on May 1, 2007


Some people blow $5 on a drink or a lottery ticket and don't get that much gratification. Maybe it was this guy.

Not me. That code is going to aggravate my angry thetans cut into my DVD residuals, yo!
posted by Tom Cruise at 9:40 PM on May 1, 2007 [4 favorites]


The problem is that there is a finite number of ways to communicate, and all of them involve business at some level. So if all business decide to stop allowing a certain kind of speech, that speech becomes impossible.

Allowing for-profit corporations to decide what can and can't be said strikes all sorts of problems.


But in this case, you're posting on the website that's owned by the for-profit corporation. It's their decision what gets published. You might even argue that if they can't decide what gets published on their own site, then their free speech is stripped (as silly as it sounds to say that). I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just saying it's their right. Just like it's my right to not post on Digg and go somewhere I think will allow me to post it.

It's a different story if I make my own website and post it, and then my hosting company gives the MPAA my personal information so that they can take action against me. Well, at that point, I would say I had my rights violated and possibly my free speech stripped from me, depending on how you look at it.
posted by Ekim Neems at 9:40 PM on May 1, 2007


At present, while most consumers have a monitor well capable of showing at least 720p at its native resolution, the lack of HDCP support forces the user to either use an analogue connection or be forced to watch the picture in a greatly reduced resolution

The thing is, HDCP is one of those things that isn't being used yet, Blu-ray and HD DVD will play fine right now on a TV that doesn't support HDCP, this HDCP thing may be used on discs some time in the future but if it keeps getting cracked left and right studios might not bother.
posted by bobo123 at 9:42 PM on May 1, 2007


Ekim Neems, you are missing the whole point. The question is not if it is fair or not. It is whether the censorship is POSSIBLE or not. I would venture to say, apparently not at this point.
posted by unSane at 9:45 PM on May 1, 2007


Wired has a pretty straightforward post on what the number represents

Which starts with the code, which has apparently been available in that post since the middle of February. Given how quickly a Wired blog caved on the Todd Goldman thing, it's a little surprising they still have it available as this Digg thing unfolds. Guess we'll see how long it remains.
posted by mediareport at 9:46 PM on May 1, 2007


Reminds me of when Metafilter had elephant day. Only completely different.
posted by yeti at 9:47 PM on May 1, 2007


I CAN HAS CHEEZ09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0

Yeah, anyways.

I like the little revolt. I'll be curious to see just how many times the MPAA and RIAA need to hear that they do NOT CONTROL THE INTERNET.
posted by Salmonberry at 9:51 PM on May 1, 2007


davejay - shit... nope, that was meant to link here:

http://blog.digg.com/?p=73.
posted by Artw at 9:51 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


This is strange and it is hard to tell how serious some of the ramifications will be. Slashdot and Boingboing and Google have handled similar legal issues with a lot more grace.

One indicator of the mood is this Digg story:
http://www.digg.com/apple/DIGG_IF_YOU_THINK_DIGG_DIED_TONIGHT

It has +2000 diggs so far.

It is a strange event, and I think Digg's management can still recover if they come back on their hands and knees to the community. I expect that they will in some fashion, as there is too much money at stake (i.e. they haven't yet sold out to a larger firm.) I expect there are some major meetings tonight at Digg headquarters hashing out how they are going to respond to this major PR diaster.
posted by bhouston at 9:56 PM on May 1, 2007


DAVEJAY - your example doesn't quite work. if you read the article at wired that explains how the hacker found the key, it is more like your sensitive document had the key written right on the cover.
posted by matt_od at 9:57 PM on May 1, 2007


All this is going to piss the legitimate customers and the crackers have the upper hand -- they can do that whenever they want. The problem is unfixable.

(And piracy is progressive taxation too.)
posted by NewBornHippy at 10:01 PM on May 1, 2007


Wow.
posted by taosbat at 10:03 PM on May 1, 2007


And they act surprised as if they didn't know Digg was a business and *gasp* had sponsors! The nerve of them!

Here's the deal: Digg made its name on the premise of user-generated content. You vote for what you want to see! You post the news! You decide what's important! etc. Digg is also sponsored; this is pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't use ad blocking software. This sort of testy arrangement exists in a lot of place, though because Digg has gone out of its way to portray itself as controlled by its userbase, it's especially vulnerable. But everyone's aware of the tension between the interests of the audience and the interests of the sponsors; we've been having this conversation for decades.

So when this sort of backlash occurs, it's not out of some naive expectation that sponsorship simply not exist. The retort of "what, didn't these idiots know Digg was a business?" doesn't apply because that's not the issue. Digg is allowed to be a business; Digg is allowed to have sponsors. What makes this different is that, in the eyes of its readers, Digg crossed the line the minute it decided to censor its own users and content. An unspoken agreement was broken; the stalemate between the interests of the audience and the interests of the sponsors was destroyed.
posted by chrominance at 10:05 PM on May 1, 2007 [9 favorites]


There's a problem with your metaphor, davejay.

The Sensitive Document in reality has no proprietary material. It has no trade secret, it contains no information. There is no secret that it is hiding, other than itself.

Its sole purpose is to prevent anyone who is in physical possession of the disc to utilize that data in any way other than that sanctioned by the content creator. The only thing sensitive is the behavior of that limiting system itself.

With this in mind, be aware that (caution: slippery slope argument ahead) this sets legal precedent for future laws that restrict you from using ANY item in any way not explicitly approved of by the creator. Like your car? That aftermarket spoiler is a violation of the vehicular equivalent of the DMCA.

If I, as the person who bought the disc does not have full ownership of the data on that disc, including fair use rights, then I have licensed the data on that disc. But the DMCA does not assign the liability to the data owner of supporting the license: If I lose a book, I have to buy a new one, because I am the full owner of that book, not a licensee. If I am a licensee of a DVD and it gets scratched, will Sony replace it for me? If I do not enjoy the benefits of ownership by being compelled into a license, why then to I not enjoy the benefits of a license either?
posted by chimaera at 10:06 PM on May 1, 2007 [4 favorites]



if (preg_match ("09-F9-11-02-9D-74", digg_post)) {
reject_post;
}


I mean, geez, I'm looking at the Digg front page right now and they haven't figured this one out yet?
posted by hodyoaten at 10:06 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


Is this 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0 something you have to watch HDDVD to know about?
posted by mazola at 10:08 PM on May 1, 2007


chrominance: exactly. In newspaper speak, one could say that the editorial independence of Digg was lost today as a result of pressure from sponsors. That is how it appears at least.
posted by bhouston at 10:09 PM on May 1, 2007


Is this 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0 something you need to watch HD DVD to know about, because I don't watch HD DVD.
posted by John Shaft at 10:09 PM on May 1, 2007


Argh! No! Teach me for being all in-jokey.
posted by John Shaft at 10:10 PM on May 1, 2007


Digg was gamed from the start, remember?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:11 PM on May 1, 2007


That aftermarket spoiler is a violation of the vehicular equivalent of the DMCA.

And vehicular good taste.

if (preg_match ("09-F9-11-02-9D-74", digg_post)) {
reject_post;
}


there is a comment in this thread that breaks that code.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 10:11 PM on May 1, 2007


09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0 shot the sheriff (but it did not shoot the deputy).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:13 PM on May 1, 2007


Is there are less worthwhile cause than the right to watch Hollywood movies in HD?

(or indeed, the editorial independence of the world's most generic link aggregator?)
posted by cillit bang at 10:15 PM on May 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


@cillit bang: Thank you! I was just thinking all of this for bread and circus.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 10:17 PM on May 1, 2007


I say I just register a couple of DNS entries in IPv6 space and be done with it

Already been done.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:18 PM on May 1, 2007


Actually, I think the correct key is 04-F8-15-16-2D-34-E2-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0



I'll see myself out
posted by kosher_jenny at 10:18 PM on May 1, 2007


Does this have something to do with that show Lost?
posted by dazed_one at 10:20 PM on May 1, 2007 [11 favorites]


It is likely this story is now going to end up in the major mainstream media as the story of "user revolt" in "Web 2.0" space. Funny stuff, especially when you know that the people behind it are mostly 12 to 16 year olds.
posted by bhouston at 10:20 PM on May 1, 2007


Is there [a] less worthwhile cause than the right to watch Hollywood movies in HD?

There aren't many, no. But there are some more important issues at play here, fun as poking the MPAA in the balls with the 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0-ery may be.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:22 PM on May 1, 2007


This is just more Nine Inch Nails viral marketing, isn't it?
posted by rhizome23 at 10:22 PM on May 1, 2007 [3 favorites]


Man, are all digg users hyper-sensitive-the-sky-is-falling idiots or just these users?
posted by puke & cry at 10:22 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


vox populi wins.
posted by zabuni at 10:25 PM on May 1, 2007


vox populi wins.

Good on Kevin -- a little fluttery, but the right thing to say and do.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:28 PM on May 1, 2007


I'm actually kinda surprised Kevin Rose and Co. didn't crackdown and just block everything that had to do with HDDVD.
posted by matkline at 10:28 PM on May 1, 2007


Wow, this is rather fascinating.
posted by dazed_one at 10:29 PM on May 1, 2007


more important issues at play here

I agree with that, I suppose. Digg wants to get rich off of the work of their users, and Digg wants to corral the content they don't produce. That seems like a stinky deal to the users. But hey, the free market should correct this, right?

I can't even tell if that is a snark or not.

Above that, the idea that I buy data from movie studio X, and I am not trusted with the data I just paid for ... well, that seems stinky to the consumer in me, as well.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 10:29 PM on May 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


As much as I am proud of the users on Digg and pretty much everywhere on the Internet where this is being discussed, I lament the ultimate goal of the revolution, for it is but a clearer version of this.
posted by chime at 10:31 PM on May 1, 2007


zabuni: "vox populi wins."

That was expected. There is too much money at stake.

matkline: "I'm actually kinda surprised Kevin Rose and Co. didn't crackdown and just block everything that had to do with HDDVD."

Digg did do this initially and that is what provoked the revolt.
posted by bhouston at 10:33 PM on May 1, 2007


I made a Free Speech Flag and posted it on Digg to join the madness. It was removed with no explanation. Undaunted, I reposted it. This time it stuck. I've been watching the number of Diggs and comments bounce up and down as people get banned and come back under various aliases.

It's been interesting and somewhat disappointing. I've enjoyed my time on Digg, but watching a community-based site siding against its users is idiotic. It's like an oxymoron in action.

They can't ban everyone. And everyone is reposting the code. What will they do now?
posted by hipnerd at 10:33 PM on May 1, 2007 [3 favorites]


What will they do now?

They back down.
posted by dazed_one at 10:37 PM on May 1, 2007


What will they do now?

hipnerd, read zabuni's link. They're giving in, which was really the only thing they could have done and maintained any semblance of integrity. Also, what the hell: I'm in!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:37 PM on May 1, 2007


hipnerd, Digg servers appear to be in a state of semi-failure with submissions, comments and diggs appearing and disappearing at random. I believe it has to do with load-balancing and database cluster syncing.
posted by bhouston at 10:38 PM on May 1, 2007


My god. Can you imagine what a revolt of Metafilter members would look like?

Bevets would be hanging from the streeplamps, and the gutters would flow with the piss of elephants...
posted by Jimbob at 10:41 PM on May 1, 2007 [5 favorites]


Wow, that Kevin Rose is a real asshole, trying to pass himself off as blameless for this.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:41 PM on May 1, 2007


Can someone really make a number illegal? can you copyright numbers? do I owe money to Heinz every time I type 57?
posted by magikker at 10:43 PM on May 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


Site is down at the moment, with a generic maintenance page up. I find this all fascinating.
posted by sbutler at 10:45 PM on May 1, 2007


Digg just formally went done for "maintenance." I was expecting that.

When it comes back up, expect it to have all the undesirable stories and comments purged along with the implementation of a bunch of new draconian rules.

I wouldn't be surprised if the big VC investors behind Digg are now weighting in on how to handle this crisis of credibility.
posted by bhouston at 10:46 PM on May 1, 2007


I'm most amused that Kevin Rose's concession has been so absolute he even uses the key in the title of the blog post admitting defeat.

I wonder what the HDDVD lawyer dudes are thinking right now.
posted by MetaMonkey at 10:47 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


bhouston: didn't you read the linked digg blog? They caved.
posted by nightchrome at 10:47 PM on May 1, 2007


I believe there is at least $50 million dollars bet on Digg's continued success and today's shitstorm has likely threatened that big payoff. This is going to get very interesting.
posted by bhouston at 10:48 PM on May 1, 2007


Bevets would be hanging from the streeplamps, and the gutters would flow with the piss of elephants...

Just another day in metatalk.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 10:49 PM on May 1, 2007


some commentary on the "revolt":
http://blog.digg.com/
posted by Kifer85 at 10:49 PM on May 1, 2007


Am I alone to think that Rose's response is actually a terrible idea and he should have stood his ground? This conniption wouldn't necessarily destroy Digg, even if they did ban hundreds of people over it, though it presumably would give them a big hit to their user base. His current plan seems to be to battle the inevitable lawsuit until his company goes down in flames. I wonder what the investors will think of that business plan? The data is out there. Is it really worth destroying your company over?


(This assumes that the DMCA does indeed legally protect that sequence, and I've never known the DMCA to fail to protect anything, ever.)
posted by abcde at 10:50 PM on May 1, 2007


nightchrome: I did, but I am thinking that they need to "reset" Digg. They need to stop the protest and this is a way of doing that. I found Kevin's statement to be reactionary and not strategic, and I think that isn't the end of the story.
posted by bhouston at 10:50 PM on May 1, 2007


As much as I hated (well, really didn't care about) Digg, I honestly feel bad for the Digg admins. This will kill them, either way.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:51 PM on May 1, 2007


nightchrome: I could be wrong, Digg is back online.
posted by bhouston at 10:53 PM on May 1, 2007


Wow, that Kevin Rose is a real asshole, trying to pass himself off as blameless for this.

That's not very gracious. I sympathize with the difficulty of his position -- time will tell if he and the other people who run digg will use this wildcat protest as an opportunity to widen the cracks in the whole DRM regime, or sweep it under the carpet (which clearly wasn't working anyway).

I'm hoping it's the former, but with the site being down for the first time that I've noticed since its inception, it's not looking good.

This is going to get very interesting.

Indeedy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:53 PM on May 1, 2007


bhouston: Yeah, but the posts are still coming. The spammers might not care that they won.
posted by nightchrome at 10:54 PM on May 1, 2007


Meanwhile, Fark is having its own user revolt...
posted by Guy Smiley at 10:55 PM on May 1, 2007


Then again, Rose was always an idealistic, anti-authoritarian gray-hat hacker type (or at least that's what he tried to put across). Still, his concession reads way more like it's driven by a (perhaps underthought) pragmatism toward his users' concerns than the shared ideological streak.
posted by abcde at 10:56 PM on May 1, 2007


"But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be."

Perhaps it's just that I have come to the point in my old age to believe that there are lawyers telling complete strangers how to properly say good morning to each other, so as to accentuate their profit margins and minimize their budgetary concerns, but I interpret the above to mean this:

"Look you fuckers. We got the assholes who pay us money so we can keep this fucking thing open telling us if we don't shut you fuckers up, they'll not only take away all the money, but they'll sue us, throw us in jail, have the mafia rape and murder random family members and friends, while you assholes just surf and post to your hearts' content completely oblivious to the fact you're ruining our lives on a lark. The fact is all the hackers who can actually do something with this information already have it. You're just being a bunch of self-grandizing pricks using my life's work as your fucking playground. But hey. I don't wanna be painted as the bad guy here. So I'm gonna let you asshats have your fun. I hope your Mommies tuck you in bed at night and then pour seething hot hydrochloric acid on your heads in the morning cuz YOU. ALL. SUCK. mkthxby!"

...but perhaps I'm reading a little too much into it.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:02 PM on May 1, 2007 [7 favorites]


No, I think that's probably a pretty accurate read, ZachsMind.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:03 PM on May 1, 2007


No, that's about right.
posted by abcde at 11:04 PM on May 1, 2007


Meanwhile, Fark is having its own user revolt...

They were deleting boobies? What did they think would happen? That's like taking a shit on Salma Hayek's boobies in Waziristan.
posted by fleetmouse at 11:06 PM on May 1, 2007


But did I go over the top when I added the lolcat bit at the end there? I never can tell when I'm going over the top.

...

Salma Hayek's hot!
posted by ZachsMind at 11:08 PM on May 1, 2007


Digg is DOWN over this? Holy cow!
posted by brundlefly at 11:08 PM on May 1, 2007


And also, yes ZachsMind.
posted by brundlefly at 11:11 PM on May 1, 2007


Kevin Rose over @ digg posted this at 9pm PST... looks like it reverses Jay Adelsons' recent post. Compare and contrast.
posted by keno at 11:14 PM on May 1, 2007


zabuni writes "vox populi wins."

Awesome.

I guess that's what the point was, eh fellas?
posted by mr_roboto at 11:17 PM on May 1, 2007



Wish they'd greenlight the fark thread, so I can read it too..
posted by lundman at 11:28 PM on May 1, 2007


Techmeme's A-List rimjobbery sucks (you know, until they start scraping my site too), but it's a good resource at the moment for discussion about this, out there.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:28 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


The digg page on Wikipedia has been locked off.
posted by brundlefly at 11:31 PM on May 1, 2007


So the moral of the story is: "Don't bet your life/career/sanity on the consistency and sense of fairness of web users"?

How is this different from actors and rock stars who fall from grace in the eyes of the public?

I'm not feeling real sorry for Kevin Rose, et al right now.
posted by sparkzy at 11:34 PM on May 1, 2007


You're not missing anything, lundman, no threads about Digg show up even on the TotalFark page. Verboten to link to the rival site.
posted by tgyg at 11:57 PM on May 1, 2007


hipnerd: Good idea on the flag. I couldn't help but throw together my own version.
posted by potch at 11:57 PM on May 1, 2007


Fascinating stuff. This is going to kill Jack Valenti ... again.
posted by Elmore at 12:08 AM on May 2, 2007


I typed the string into my computer, hit 'execute' and everyone died but Mr. Eko.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:16 AM on May 2, 2007 [6 favorites]


magikker: No, you can't copyright numbers (Intel tried really, really hard, but eventually gave up and called their next processor "Pentium" instead of "'586"). But the DMCA is not really about copyright violation. It outlaws distributing any information on how to circumvent a "technological protection measure" which protects copyrighted content. No actual or potential copyright violation needs to be involved: just some copyrighted content and a circumventable "technological protection measure".

This has been used in some very bizarre cases, since there's no lower bound on the complexity or efficacy of the t.p.m. (ROT-13 counts; if I explain to you how to un-ROT13 a document, or even mention that a document is ROT13'd, I can be in violation of the DMCA) or the complexity of the circumvention (holding down the shift key while inserting a CD, which disables one particularly laughable copy protection product, counts) or the amount of copyrighted material.

In the case of HD-DVD (and CSS before it), the on-disk crypto doesn't really prevent piracy: you can always copy the whole encrypted disk, then play it in an industry-approved player and have that player decrypt it. The crypto is there to make it hard for someone to break the player software cartel and produce a player that does things not approved by the industry, like play disks from a different region, or allow you to fast-forward through the commercials.
posted by hattifattener at 12:21 AM on May 2, 2007 [5 favorites]


I love it.
posted by Many bubbles at 12:44 AM on May 2, 2007


Intel tried really, really hard, but eventually gave up and called their next processor "Pentium" instead of "'586")

© ≠ ™
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:45 AM on May 2, 2007 [3 favorites]


It's back up.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:49 AM on May 2, 2007


"There I was completely wasting, out of work and down
All inside its so frustrating as I drift from town to town
Feel as though nobody cares if I live or die
So I might as well begin to put some action in my life

Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking teh law, breaking teh law"

heh, hehheh, hehhehhehheh, heh, hehheh, heh, heh ..
posted by borq at 12:59 AM on May 2, 2007


hattifattener: Exactly, the issue is not about illegimate duplication in bulk in China (if it was, they would seriously reconsider having their dvds copied in a factory where the workers could make more money with the copy they walk out the door with, than in a week working on the floor. And even making the factories bulk up their security guards and assination squads will eventually raise the operating costs). This is about making end users pay for the media for every time they want to listen to it (eventually) or atleast on each medium. Once for the DVD format, once for the HD version, once for the iPod, once for the cell phone, once for the tv.

Not to mention the Region limitation, that allows for rights for movies to be sold on a region basis. Pretty much artifically fragmenting the market, and creating more things to sell. Did you know that Entrapment got money from Coke to feature their soda in the film Catherine Zeta Jones has a desire to drink the soda. But Coke didn't buy the rights for the DVD release so instead, the machine she drinks a soda from is a Pepsi machine. Multiple income streams and maximum return on investment, more and more laws are being written for a corporate agenda, not a human one.
posted by mrzarquon at 1:31 AM on May 2, 2007 [4 favorites]


The Revolution now has its battle cry.
Viva La Revolution.
Unless, of course, I could be sued for saying that.
posted by MapGuy at 2:06 AM on May 2, 2007


So why is the reaction at Digg and Fark so much different than the reaction to certain celebrity speculation here? I'm not passionate about any of it (and have no objections to the moderation here), but the vastly different reactions of the communities is fascinating.

Is it that the Fark and Digg users expect absolute freedom while we know, expect and admire the moderated world here?
posted by maxwelton at 3:20 AM on May 2, 2007


There are now some threads on Fark about trying to post the forbidden numbers in a similar protest as posters at Digg. Fark mods are closer to Metafilter than they are to Digg. Any numbers posted to Fark will be removed and the poster banned.

Farkers are revolting (as noted above, and the recent site redesign) about other issues.

Both Digg and Fark (and Metafilter) are completely dependent their contributing members. I'm wondering if the general unrest at Digg and Fark is a result of the realization that the site's owners are making a lot of money off the members.
posted by tgyg at 3:58 AM on May 2, 2007


My god. Can you imagine what a revolt of Metafilter members would look like?

I don't know if there's ever been a MeFi revolt, but there has been a Slashdot revolt. If anyone's still reading this, here's a link to the great Slashdot purging of '02 (original thread here, deleted, sadly). In a nutshell, someone posted an off-topic comment that was critical of the moderation system and got modded down into oblivion. Then each and every reply to the original comment was also modded down into oblivion as fast as they came up. There were something like 2000 replies, many insightful/interesting, all immediately modded down (and not by other users, as the system is designed to work, but by the slashdot moderators, who went ape-shit with power).
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:15 AM on May 2, 2007


While the jack-booted moderaters here clamp down relentlessly on anyone who mentions a certain possibly closeted actor's so-called religion, other sites are more committed to giving community members the freedom to bore everyone with stupid bullshit.
posted by Methylviolet at 4:24 AM on May 2, 2007


Funnily enough (now someone else has linked it) I guess I can mention that http://09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63.com is mine. It's a free speech experiment, really.
posted by jaduncan at 4:40 AM on May 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


I give the OP credit for making me visit digg.com for the very first time today.

However, it appears to suck.

That is all.
posted by po at 4:51 AM on May 2, 2007


I give the OP credit for making me visit digg.com for the very first time today. However, it appears to suck.

You must be new here.
posted by unSane at 5:06 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


The fact is all the hackers who can actually do something with this information already have it.

Couldn't that logic also have been used to stand up against the cease-and-desist? I mean, Jay's post justifying the removal yesterday afternoon mentioned "they believe the posting of the encryption key infringes their intellectual property rights," and Kevin's post last night said, "We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code." Doesn't that imply there was an arguable defense there? Might that not have been arguable? After all, the code is still up at Wired.

Isn't that Digg didn't even bother to make that defense while other popular sites have yet to cave what's really bothering the Digg users here?
posted by mediareport at 5:09 AM on May 2, 2007


Just to make sure I understand, the MPAA banked everything on security through obscurity and now they want to censor Bruce Schneier's phone number?

Awwwww, that's so cute.

We used to have a secret knock you had to know to get into the club house. I was 12.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:14 AM on May 2, 2007


Is there a point anyway? I don't know in USA, but in Europe Blu-Ray seems to be way ahead.
I haven't seen an Hd-DVD anywhere, and I know that Blockbuster have no plans of renting HD-DVD in the future.
posted by darkripper at 5:25 AM on May 2, 2007


maxwelton writes "So why is the reaction at Digg and Fark so much different than the reaction to certain celebrity speculation here?"

Apples and oranges.

Because there were only 2 people here for whom the consequences would be at best aggravatingly timeconsuming and at worst bankruptingly life destroying (if a take down notice was ignored). The commentary was speculative, however well reasoned it might have been. It was very esoteric and potentially libellous - noone or virtually noone, had any preformed opinion so it's hard to believe a whole bunch of people would jump on a high horse about something where they don't really know anything about it or have a stake other than as some skewed free speech principals stand.

The unlocking code is a hotbutton, well known issue that has been played out since recording devices were developed --- it's about a big business restricting what the consumers can do with a product they have purchased - one way or another, most people are affected by that technology and so have some sort of opinion or stake - and particularly tech types on the internet, hence the hubris. Kicking up a fuss has a potential individual benefit in this case as well as being another blow against 'the man'.
posted by peacay at 5:39 AM on May 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


@cillit bang: The issue, really, is the rights I have over everything I believe I own. Imagine if Ford had Ford gas stations and you HAD to buy your gas for your Ford car from a Ford gas station or shark like lawyers would show up at your door demanding $10,000 for your act of theft.

That's been the direction that the RIAA and MPAA have been wandering in for several years. Does this have real world effects? Let's just say I've heard lots of things about Windows Vista's features that are designed to keep one from copying HD-DVDs and will only be a moderate pain in the ass for the average user. I have yet to hear one reason I'd actually want it on a machine I was going to use for something.

If you don't believe that stable secure operating systems are important in the 21st century allow me to introduce you to my friend Mr. 7200 tonne destroyer. I'd like to believe that there's more to taking control of one than figuring out 26 digits of hex, but I'm just far enough inland that a Tomahawk cruise missile can't quite reach me.

Well, the old ones can't.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:43 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


damn. guess it's time to change my WEP key now that everybody's posting it.
posted by roue at 5:54 AM on May 2, 2007 [3 favorites]


Damn I'm late. Digg still sucks yo.
posted by chunking express at 5:56 AM on May 2, 2007


my contribution to what is doubtless a juvenile little game.
posted by jepler at 5:59 AM on May 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


also, this is pretty cool. i love the internets.
posted by chunking express at 6:21 AM on May 2, 2007


If someone were to ask me to make a list of shit worth rioting over right now, a code to pirate DVDs would probably not be real high on it.
posted by The Straightener at 6:21 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


The issue, really, is the rights I have over everything I believe I own.

Exactly my point.
posted by cillit bang at 6:23 AM on May 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


My god. Can you imagine what a revolt of Metafilter members would look like?

Probably like this. Or, if you use the Greasemonkey script, like this.
posted by Partial Law at 6:25 AM on May 2, 2007 [3 favorites]


If I handled this for the MPAA, I would have various people post fake keys starting months ago. Most people won't be able to check them, but would be excited to spread the information. Eventually, the fake keys would create a "boy who cried wolf" scenario for whenever the real key was posted.
posted by drezdn at 6:28 AM on May 2, 2007


I miss Mr. Eko. *sniff*

When you buy a CD or DVD or whatever, the people selling it to you are not selling the movie or album to you. I mean in reality THEY ARE. You and I know it, but they think they're doing something else entirely.

They are granting you what they believe to be limited access to your appreciation of their product. This is like saying if you bought food from a grocery store, the farmers get to tell you whether or not you can share that food with family members, or friends, or strangers.

You can argue semantics all you want. That there's a difference between food, or "nondigital" products, and something that can be copied digitally. That's splitting hairs and it detracts from the bottom line of the argument. When I buy something, I wanna be able to use it as I see fit. If you don't want me to do that, then don't sell it to me.

I understand that, if left unchecked, an unscrupulous person could buy a copy of a movie, mass produce it themselves with less overhead than The Industry, and take potential profit out of the hands of said Industry. This is happening already, and if left unchecked it would happen on an even greater scale.

Putting a lock on your house only keeps out people with scruples, and without a means to break down your door. However, these people are putting locks on products that you buy. AFTER you have possession of a film or album or whatever, they still want to control what you do with it.

Drezdn, your scenario wouldn't stir up a Boy Who Cried Wolf scenario. People would just keep looking for the key, and keep trying keys till they found the one that fit, cuz if you have something in your possession, if you own something, you want be able to open it, and use it as you wish.

If The Industry doesn't want people to have their albums & movies, then it needs to get out of the business. This whole "well you can have it but not really" crap needs to end and it needs to end ten or twenty years ago.
posted by ZachsMind at 6:48 AM on May 2, 2007 [5 favorites]


THE RED KIPPER FLIES AT MIDNIGHT
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:57 AM on May 2, 2007


Late to the festival, but reading this thread I'm enjoying the folks saying "why are the diggers complaining? Don't they know that there's no way digg will allow this, as it's a company? Their protests are totally futile. It's so clear and obvious. Why are they so blind?" followed closely by Digg reversing their position due to the protests and allowing the string to be posted.
posted by Bugbread at 7:00 AM on May 2, 2007


THE RED KIPPER FLIES AT MIDNIGHT

That's the go code! The door is open! Go go GO!
posted by dazed_one at 7:00 AM on May 2, 2007


The Straightener writes "If someone were to ask me to make a list of shit worth rioting over right now, a code to pirate DVDs would probably not be real high on it."

What about a list of shit worth clicking "digg" or typing the phrase "hay, guys, here's my WEP key for my wireless connection" over? That list is a much, much bigger list, and as far as I know, that's what people are doing: clicking and typing, not rioting.
posted by Bugbread at 7:03 AM on May 2, 2007


My absolute favourite free-speech 'hack' is this rather interesting example on Wikipedia. Subtle. :-)
posted by the cydonian at 7:07 AM on May 2, 2007


That's the same combination I have on my luggage!
posted by inigo2 at 7:16 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


THE RED KIPPER FLIES AT MIDNIGHT
That's the go code! The door is open! Go go GO!

Valkyrie 17 reporting for duty, Sir!
posted by pantsrobot at 7:28 AM on May 2, 2007


What's odd is that now that this key has been released, I'll probably go buy HD DVDs. For some reason, knowing that I couldn't burn my own movies onto an external hard drive if I so choose makes me avoid buying them on that format. So congrats, MPAA, because you probably just made some money with this flub.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 7:29 AM on May 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


What's odd is that now that this key has been released, I'll probably go buy HD DVDs. For some reason, knowing that I couldn't burn my own movies onto an external hard drive if I so choose makes me avoid buying them on that format. So congrats, MPAA, because you probably just made some money with this flub.

That was their clever plot all along. Welcome to Guerilla Marketing 2.0.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:36 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


There was a story a few days ago on reddit that perhaps the Iraq war soldier casualty number is being artificially reduced, and that after including the number of soldiers who died en route to or in Germany in military hospitals after being wounded in Iraq is closer to 7,500, not 3,300. There was even an askme question about it.

But it's good to see the internet intelligentsia has its priorities straight. Thanks for protecting my right to copy HD-DVD movies that I wouldn't watch even if the studios paid me.

657465726E616C20766967696C616E636520697320746865207072696365206F66206C696265727479
posted by Pastabagel at 7:38 AM on May 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


How This Kid Made $60 Million in 18 Months.
posted by ericb at 7:46 AM on May 2, 2007


There was a story a few days ago on reddit that perhaps the Iraq war soldier casualty number is being artificially reduced...There was even an askme question about it.

And if you had read the AskMe, you would have seen that that myth was debunked.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:47 AM on May 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


The Underwire: Questions Remain After Digg Caves:
"Who sent the C&D?

What happens to the users who were banned?

Did advertising play any role?

What does this mean for the future of Digg?"
posted by ericb at 7:49 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


digg was born, got embarassing, and died in a reasonably brief timeframe. viva web 2.0, or some shit.
posted by tremspeed at 7:59 AM on May 2, 2007


Pastabagel writes "There was a story a few days ago on reddit that perhaps the Iraq war soldier casualty number is being artificially reduced, and that after including the number of soldiers who died en route to or in Germany in military hospitals after being wounded in Iraq is closer to 7,500, not 3,300. There was even an askme question about it.

But it's good to see the internet intelligentsia has its priorities straight. Thanks for protecting my right to copy HD-DVD movies that I wouldn't watch even if the studios paid me."


Because apparently uncovering possible official corruption is equivalent in effort to typing the string "09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0".

Well, very well:

7,500 casualties
7,500 casualties
7,500 casualties

There. I've now done three times as much to disseminate that information as I have to disseminate the HD-DVD code. Are you satisfied?
posted by Bugbread at 8:01 AM on May 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


tremspeed writes "digg was born, got embarassing, and died in a reasonably brief timeframe."

It died?
posted by Bugbread at 8:09 AM on May 2, 2007


potch: That's brilliant. I wish I had thought of using the zero-with-a-slash over the "C" as an ant-copyright symbol.

Can I display and link to that?
posted by hipnerd at 8:11 AM on May 2, 2007


Zero Nine. F Nine. Eleven. Zero Two. Nine D. Seventy Four. E Three. Five B. D Eight. Forty One. Fifty Fix. C Five. Sixty Three. Fifty Six. Eighty Eight. C Zero.
posted by NewBornHippy at 8:27 AM on May 2, 2007


But it's good to see the internet intelligentsia has its priorities straight.

i love oxymorons like internet intelligentsia
posted by pyramid termite at 8:42 AM on May 2, 2007


Illegal Primes
posted by 445supermag at 8:45 AM on May 2, 2007


If there was an internet intelligentsia, they certainly wouldn't be hanging out on digg. Its just a step up from YouTube in terms of its dumbass quotient.
posted by chunking express at 8:45 AM on May 2, 2007


ok, we had a MeTa argument about a related topic a little while back -- this is a good place to point out that what's happening on digg is exactly the sort of thing i highly approve of -- mass revolt. at the time i was called a DMCA troll, which was frustrating -- i couldn't articulate my position properly, but this is a concrete example of the sort of scorched-earth tactics that might eventually bring down the locked-content dictatorship. and i like me some scorched earth. smells like marshmallows. or napalm.
posted by spiderwire at 8:49 AM on May 2, 2007


Nadazero Novenine Foxtrot Novenine Unaone Unaone Nadazero Bissotwo Novenine Delta Setteseven Kartefour Echo Terrathree Pantafive Bravo Delta Oktoeight Kartefour Unaone Pantafive Soxisix Charlie Pantafive Soxisix Terrathree Pantafive Soxisix Oktoeight Oktoeight Charlie Nadazero
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:49 AM on May 2, 2007


The revolution will be 63743;-C 63743;-V'ed!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:51 AM on May 2, 2007


Unfortunately, this scorched earth approach is only hurting digg -- which isn't the real criminal here. Why should the MPAA care whether digg lives or dies?
posted by jdfalk at 9:19 AM on May 2, 2007


0000100111111001000100010000001010011101011101001110001101011011
1101100001000001010101101100010101100011010101101000100011000000
posted by Bugbread at 9:20 AM on May 2, 2007


Algol Waterloo Athens aftermath quadrant indoors torpedo erase stupendous cranky escapade solo Galveston
posted by acro at 9:24 AM on May 2, 2007


Convenient But Obscure Gif

Code
posted by weston at 9:28 AM on May 2, 2007


hipnerd: absolutely.
posted by potch at 9:31 AM on May 2, 2007


but this is a concrete example of the sort of scorched-earth tactics that might eventually bring down the locked-content dictatorship

You know that you're meant to scorch your enemy's earth, right? Disrupting your own favourite website for a few hours and giving them ammo to sue it out of existence is not such a great negoiating tool.
posted by cillit bang at 9:44 AM on May 2, 2007


Unfortunately, this scorched earth approach is only hurting digg -- which isn't the real criminal here. Why should the MPAA care whether digg lives or dies?

You are kidding, right?

Google now has 58,000 search results for the string in question.

Yesterday, when I posted the OP, there was less than half that number (I checked).

I would guess the day before, there were far fewer.

By attempting to suppress the key, the MPAA have managed to disseminate it vastly more widely, a classic paradoxical unintended consequence and one which should cause them to take pause and ask themselves what exactly they hope to achieve.

If Digg goes down over this, which I doubt, then the MPAA will have created a Frankenstein's monster for itself in the shape of a trillion disaffected Digg users -- their precise target demographic (male 18-24).
posted by unSane at 9:59 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


You know that you're meant to scorch your enemy's earth, right?

Without lending any credibility to the comment in question, I don't believe "scorched earth" only applies to others' lands. Otherwise it wouldn't be very interesting as a tactic:

"The practice may be carried out by an army in enemy territory, or by an army in its own home territory."
posted by yerfatma at 10:06 AM on May 2, 2007


a trillion disaffected Digg users

That's the kind of thing that would get me to consider suicide.
posted by yerfatma at 10:07 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


54-48-49-53-20-47-45-54-53-20-54-49-52-45-53-4F-4D-45
posted by dmd at 10:08 AM on May 2, 2007


For some reason this page isn't titled "Digg is revolting". I'll assume there was a clerical error.
posted by Wolfdog at 10:19 AM on May 2, 2007


This seems a bit more intersting and important than Digg users and their silly tantrum, I doubt any of them will be taking up the cause though.
posted by Artw at 10:47 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


(and has it's own thread, which I probably should have looked for)
posted by Artw at 10:55 AM on May 2, 2007


Pastabagel:
657465726E616C20766967696C616E636520697320746865207072696365206F66206C696265727479


Nice, Pasta.

If you haven't clued yet.
posted by unSane at 11:04 AM on May 2, 2007


If Digg goes down over this, which I doubt, then the MPAA will have created a Frankenstein's monster for itself in the shape of a trillion disaffected Digg users -- their precise target demographic

Digg users hating the MPAA? It'll never happen.

The practice may be carried out by an army in enemy territory, or by an army in its own home territory.

You're missing the key phrase from the opening sentence: "destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy".
posted by cillit bang at 11:25 AM on May 2, 2007


From what I've seen it's pretty hard to destroy anything that might be useful to anyone on Digg. It's like the less smart Slashdot.
posted by Artw at 11:29 AM on May 2, 2007


cillit bang writes "You're missing the key phrase from the opening sentence: 'destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy'."

Yeah, I think "scorched earth" is being misused here, because the scorching of the earth is a negative side-effect, not a means of harming the enemy. If anything, it's more like a blanket bombing which takes out some of your own troops, while causing much more damage to the enemy. Blanket bombing may scorch the earth, but we don't call it "scorched earth".
posted by Bugbread at 11:48 AM on May 2, 2007


while causing much more damage to the enemy.

Except as mentioned upthread, every hacker already has these codes, and anywhere who cares already hates the MPAA, so it achieved nothing in either a practical or PR sense. They were just taking out their anger out on Kevin Rose because it's all they can do, and it's easy. It's as effective a tactic as beating your wife because you had a bad day at work.
posted by cillit bang at 12:17 PM on May 2, 2007


cillit bang writes "Except as mentioned upthread, every hacker already has these codes, and anywhere who cares already hates the MPAA, so it achieved nothing in either a practical or PR sense."

I very very basically understand how the code is used, but not the details. Is it only valuable to the hackers who make HD-DVD playback/copying/cracking software? Or is it also usable by end users?
posted by Bugbread at 12:26 PM on May 2, 2007


Did Digg clear the shark?

Wag the Digg.
posted by MapGuy at 1:14 PM on May 2, 2007


Foot, meet bullet.
posted by HTuttle at 1:51 PM on May 2, 2007


They keep the riff-raff out by charging $5 (one off) for a login

It's a good thing I got my login free because I'm certainly riff-raff.
posted by MikeMc at 2:51 PM on May 2, 2007


What MikeMc said. I got in on the ground floor back when Matt wasn't charging. We old timers are definitely riff-raff. I dunno why he puts up with us.
posted by ZachsMind at 3:02 PM on May 2, 2007


this is a good place to point out that what's happening on digg is exactly the sort of thing i highly approve of -- mass revolt. at the time i was called a DMCA troll

Not how I remember it, spiderwire. It didn't sound like you were encouraging any kind of mass revolt, it sounded at the time you were telling us all NOT to link to any DMCA-violating software, or even Google results linking to that software, lest Matt get's shut down. Maybe we all misunderstood you...
posted by Jimbob at 3:07 PM on May 2, 2007


It's everywhere.

Is there some secret conversion tool that turns this into the Number of the Beast?
posted by Robert Angelo at 4:30 PM on May 2, 2007


spiderwire writes "this is a good place to point out that what's happening on digg is exactly the sort of thing i highly approve of -- mass revolt. at the time i was called a DMCA troll, which was frustrating -- i couldn't articulate my position properly"

Whoa, you're right, you didn't articulate yourself well. I never thought you were a DMCA troll; I certainly got the vibe that you were warning Matt because you thought the DMCA sucked, not because you were supporting it. But I certainly didn't get an "I support massive revolt" message from what you posted, either.
posted by Bugbread at 4:33 PM on May 2, 2007


Maybe we all misunderstood you...

yeah, i think so... what i was trying to say is that little teeny skirmishes and piecemeal battles is sort of the MPAA's strategy -- selective lawsuits work well. i mean, look how the RIAA does it.

so posting hacks here and there on your favorite website really only puts that website at risk. i remember saying that revolt was a nice idea, just not feasible: turns out it's feasible! i stand pleasantly chagrined. i just never thought it would happen this way. it's very encouraging.

in this case, there's a lot of reasons why i like what i called the "scorched-earth" tactic... for example:
1. digg has the common-carrier defense -- "this was just our users, we're content-neutral!"
2. there's no precedent for it -- one of my worries w/r/t mefi was that not enforcing due diligence would make for future ammo in lawsuits -- digg did the opposite.
3. digg has a necessity defense. they can't shut down their website or they'd suffer huge financial losses -- so they can counterbalance that against any claims the MPAA makes. whereas the cost of closing one thread is trivial. the revolt by their users is just more fuel for that particular fire.
4. once the key gets into the public domain, digg gets to argue that it's not their fault, and they become only one defendant in a class-action lawsuit. much easier to defend than a single web admin with limited funds.

i'm very cynical about the "revolt at every opportunity" strategy, but that doesn't mean that i don't approve of actual revolts when they do happen. i just don't think you can force it and that you have to choose your battles. when it happens it's a wonderful thing.

and even if y'all think i'm being disingenuous, i'm nevertheless pleased, so take that for what you will. i don't think it's inconsistent with what i said previously, but even if it is doublethink i'm very happy with what's happening ;)
posted by spiderwire at 6:09 PM on May 2, 2007


geoff. writes "Isn't that right? Looks to be no big deal, and looks like to be a pain the ass to users to always find these keys and distribute them for whenever the movie industry decides to roll-over a new set of processing keys. It will never be a 100% fool proof plan but it looks to be much more labor intensive than my 2-3 clicks and I have a DVD backup."

But you can't play this game too often. Walmart users aren't going to flash roms or buy new $200+ players every time your secret get out.

magikker writes "can you copyright numbers?"

Sure. All digital contenet is essential a real long number.

Civil_Disobedient writes "I don't know if there's ever been a MeFi revolt, but there has been a Slashdot revolt. If anyone's still reading this, here's a link to the great Slashdot purging of '02 (original thread here, deleted, sadly). In a nutshell, someone posted an off-topic comment that was critical of the moderation system and got modded down into oblivion. Then each and every reply to the original comment was also modded down into oblivion as fast as they came up. There were something like 2000 replies, many insightful/interesting, all immediately modded down"

Cripes I remember that. I can't find my screen shot now but at one point that comment had 800+ moderations applied. Taco would set it to -1 and six users would come along and expend a point each to bring it back to +5. Rinse, lather, repeat, repeat, repeat.

unSane writes "By attempting to suppress the key, the MPAA have managed to disseminate it vastly more widely, a classic paradoxical unintended consequence and one which should cause them to take pause and ask themselves what exactly they hope to achieve."

Exactly. Who doesn't still have CSS.txt in the root of their web servers?
posted by Mitheral at 6:32 PM on May 2, 2007


This has made my day.

I am constantly dumbfounded by the idiocy of organisations who are trying to centrally control information on the internet. A system that was designed to be decentralised.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 6:51 PM on May 2, 2007


You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company.

From now on, the concert's free.
posted by djfiander at 7:12 PM on May 2, 2007


Or even, "It's a free concert from now on."

Damn.
posted by djfiander at 7:15 PM on May 2, 2007


i just like to say 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!
posted by quonsar at 7:32 PM on May 2, 2007


EFF explains the law on AACS keys
posted by homunculus at 8:14 PM on May 2, 2007


THE CABAL HAS BEEN ACTIVATED
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:18 PM on May 2, 2007


It's a good thing I got my login free because I'm certainly riff-raff.

I'm riff-raff, just riff-raff with $5.

Well. Not $5 anymore.
posted by Many bubbles at 9:00 PM on May 2, 2007


For the record, so that I'm not potentially misunderstood in the future, I support massive revolt. I especially support massive revolt that's peaceful in nature that doesn't lead to any bloodshed, but I begrudgingly admit that historically, a little bloodshed has sadly been known to go a long way, and make more progress than a bunch of sit-ins and flushings for world peace.

For the record, this Digg thing wasn't exactly a revolt, and it certainly wasn't an issue worthy of any bloodshed. Not even a papercut.

I'd call this 'revolt' more like a temper tantrum. I will be happily surprised to find this leads to anything productive, but not gonna hold my breath.

Just read a report indicating that the code in question doesn't work on some discs that were created after April 23rd. That may be unsubstantiated rumor. IF The Industry doesn't already have a new number, there'll be one in a few weeks max.

It was a temper tantrum, but mommy still won't let you have a cookie.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:41 PM on May 2, 2007


i said mass revolt, not massive; i think that huge spontaneous blowbacks like this are significant -- they can indicate a tipping point.

does anyone else get the feeling that all those condescending-ass MPAA ads before movies have been counterproductive in bringing their censorship campaign into the forefront of the public consciousness? i still feel like the RIAA's campaign has only managed to succeed for so long because they go after individuals and universities, and generally try to fly under the radar.
posted by spiderwire at 10:24 PM on May 2, 2007


"i said mass revolt, not massive"

*blank look*

Okay wait, back up a parsec. So did you said "mass revolt" but did you mean a large mass or ... uh, mass? There's an important distinction here, cuz 'massive' means mass that's y'know, massive. And 'mass' just means mass of possibly random or arbitrary size but could be large and usually is significant. I mean 'mass' is solid and substantial, whereas 'massive' means ..uhm.... well, solid and substantial.

Just what the heck did you mean?

Or maybe you meant in the Catholic sense? A revolt at a church during mass? That'd be massive, but I don't think digg.com qualifies as a catholic mass, and I am not so sure just how massive such a mass would be literally speaking. At best, Digg.com just had a virtually massive revolt, which technically has no mass whatsoever, since websites are essentially energy transmitted via optical cable and telephone wires. Or maybe magic, which still doesn't technically have mass and arguably doesn't even exist. MAGIC???

Are you insinuating that this mass revolt of massive proportions was instigated by Penn & Teller? The deuce you say!
posted by ZachsMind at 11:21 PM on May 2, 2007


i was thinking "mass" as in mass of people, revolt by the masses. something along the lines of a gestalt moment as opposed to a revolution, which is what i took you to mean. but yeah, i suppose that it's just semantics.

i'm in an imprecise mood today from exams -- the "scorched-earth" thing didn't make much sense, either. don't mind me :)
posted by spiderwire at 11:35 PM on May 2, 2007


This whole thing came off to me not as a "revolt", or a "temper tantrum", but a festival. Basically, lots of folks having fun showing digg and the MPAA that their efforts were bound to fail. I mean, after all, look at the kinds of ways people were posting the key: "Hey, guys, I'm feeling generous, so let me tell you my WEP key so you can use my WiFi connection. It's 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0."

That's not a revolt or a temper tantrum, that's taking the piss.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, and I'm sure, of course, that a few diggaloes were angry/revolting/tantruming, but overall I got more of a festival feeling than an incensed anger feeling.
posted by Bugbread at 6:55 AM on May 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Top news story on cbsnews.com this morning.
posted by cass at 7:01 AM on May 3, 2007


cass writes "Top news story on cbsnews.com this morning."

I love the stock photo they use for that. Makes it look like the average Digg user is a 40 year old manager.
posted by Bugbread at 7:53 AM on May 3, 2007


they couldn't locate a photo of a 16 year old who was nerdy enough
posted by matteo at 8:04 AM on May 3, 2007


(possibly because basements are dimly lit)
posted by matteo at 8:04 AM on May 3, 2007


Anybody out there?

The following number, while not illegal, is the private property of one Roger Schafly, cryptographer, and will remain so until Aug. 4, 2013:

98A3DF52 AEAE9799 325CB258 D767EBD1 F4630E9B 9E21732A 4AFB1624 BA6DF911 466AD8DA 960586F4 A0D5E3C3 6AF09966 0BDDC157 7E54A9F4 02334433 ACB14BCB
(see Fig. 6).

There are many, many more privately owned numbers.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:41 PM on May 3, 2007


"This is the first round and will not be the last..."
posted by taosbat at 9:51 AM on May 4, 2007


"Let's get ready to rumble!"
posted by ZachsMind at 9:18 PM on May 6, 2007


"Google now has 58,000 search results for the string in question.

Yesterday, when I posted the OP, there was less than half that number (I checked).
-unSane, May 3"


Hehe...Google now has 1,760,000 search results for the string in question.

So they managed, by filing takedown notices, to increase the prevalence of this information by 6,000% in 5 days. Good job!!
posted by Bugbread at 7:08 AM on May 7, 2007


« Older "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er...  |  Cryptome... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments