The Digg Meltdown, Censorship and Privacy
Digg removing posts with a key for HD-DVD rights management struck a raw nerve. The comments around the Internet range from the "you can't copyright a number" to "its about censorship". Some of the best comments I saw are at Washington Post's Post IT The HD-DVD Digg revolt . What those comments and others I've seen demonstrate is just how many ways this story cuts, including:
-Digg "caving in" to a cease and desist order claiming publishing the key violates the intellectual property of someone (we don't know yet who sent the C&D order)
-Digg censoring comments about the story even when those posts did not include the key
-A sense of entitlement about publishing information that has some value to someone else
-The feeling that big media makes too much money anyway and undermining DRM is just
- And, this one sounds like some off the wall comment from the O'Reilly Factor - "I pirate because I'm a patriot." The argument is that since China and North Korea don't have anti-piracy laws it "behooves me to have access to the same software as the competition" according to uNiVerse555, a commentor at the Post IT blog.
The question that most concerns me is this notion that you can't copyright a number and we should all have free speech rights to post encryption keys. Well, then what about social security numbers, bank account numbers, and credit card numbers? Look, their just numbers, right? But if you have a little more information, like a name and address, that number becomes a lot more valuable. It's the same thing with encryption keys. To most of us, it just a number; to someone wanting to pirate copy protected material it's worth a lot more.
For the record, I'd rather pay more for music and videos and ditch DRM, it's a pain in the neck. That doesn't make me the "Decider" though. The encryption key shouldn't have been published anymore than someone's social security number or credit card number.
You don't have to like big media companies, or DRM, or even the guy next door but you can't going around screwing them by publishing private and confidential data. That's part of living in a civil society.
Email This!
Digg it!
Sphere it!
Del.icio.us
Reddit!
Newsvine
Comments
Civil society? hmmmmm maybe we should have a CIVIL GOVERNMENT people are following their lead, take, take, take
Posted by: nanotech | May 2, 2007 9:14 PM
I was thinking of something similar to nanotech's comment. When there is so much apparent disregard for laws among government officials and the presumption it's OK to do something if you can get away with it, it's no wonder we've come to the point that people will publish someone else's encryption key and argue it as a free speech matter.
Posted by: Dan Sullivan | May 2, 2007 10:09 PM
It is not illegal to simply post a SSN or bank account number. It is illegal to use it to access someone's personal accounts or information. Knowing about the key should not be a crime, using it should be.
Posted by: Shoe | May 4, 2007 1:51 PM
Yes, that's a good point, it's not a crime to know someone elese social security number. The problem is that we then have to trust everyone who knows the SSN, key, etc. not to use it and not to share it with others who might use it. We need encryption because we don't trust others and secret keys are the foundation. I think the same logic applies to SSN, credit card, bank account numbers, etc.
Posted by: Dan Sullivan | May 7, 2007 7:22 PM
I still think there are serious questions about confidentiality and privacy in this story, but thanks to Ed Felten at Freedom To Tinker for the wry humor of "You Can Own an Integer Too — Get Yours Here" (http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1155).
Posted by: Dan Sullivan | May 7, 2007 10:44 PM