• Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 hours ago

    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

    A cryptographic key for Blu-Rays. The MPAA used to send out C&Ds and DMCA takedowns left and right to hide this code.

  • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    23 hours ago

    “Pornography” was illegal to own. Things like abortion information or anything mentioning homosexuality was pornographic.

  • BertramDitore@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    High level leaks of classified material is the first example that comes to mind. The raw Wikileaks data, for example, was widely accessible and easily found by anyone with a quick search, and yet possessing that material was technically illegal, because it was never declassified.

    • eightpix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Julian Assange has something to say about this.

      Edward Snowden has something to say about this.

      Reality Winner has something to say about this.

      Chelsea Manning has something to say about this.

      Woodward and Bernstein had something to say about this.

      • BertramDitore@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        23 hours ago

        No doubt. It being illegal doesn’t mean it wasn’t morally justified and right in most cases. Just means it took more courage and personal risk to do the right thing.

  • jbrjake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    When the first DVD cracking util was released, DeCSS, it violated the DMCA and people were getting sued and threatened with felonies for sharing it. Very quickly people figured out loopholes to make it an archivable creative work, like putting it on tshirts and encoding it as a prime number: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime

  • Mighty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    So much. I mean that’s what the book burning was all about. There’s blacklisted authors. There’s state secrets. It might be information that’s legal only for certain people. I mean, if we’re being pedantic, it’s illegal for you to have information about me if I’m not giving it to you.

  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    KEVIN Birmingham’s new book about the long censorship fight over James Joyce’s Ulysses braids eight or nine good stories into one mighty strand.

    It’s about women’s rights and heroic female editors, the First World War, anarchism and modernism, tenderness and syphilis, moral panic and about the Lost Generation and the tent it pitched at Sylvia Beach’s Paris bookstore. It isolates a great love story, that of Joyce and Nora Barnacle, one that comes with a finger-burning side order of some of the most cheerfully filthy correspondence in literary history.

    https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/the-battle-to-publish-james-joyces-ulysses-1531186

    And what a quest it was. “Ulysses” was illegal to own in most of the English-speaking world for more than a decade. It was banned, burned, debated, smuggled, and finally legalized following a 1933 court ruling. In Birmingham’s highly readable and erudite book, he infuses this story with drama, reminding us that the right to express oneself can never be taken for granted.

    Readers will quickly realize the immense scope of “The Most Dangerous Book.” Modernism, obscenity, the power once held by postal authorities, vice squads, 19th century English law, Joyce’s sex life and health problems, The Lost Generation, early literary magazines, Wall Street lawyers, the suffrage movement, anarchy in America, and even the Enlightenment are all seamlessly woven into this most fascinating tapestry.

    https://www.wbur.org/news/2014/06/13/kevin-birmingham-ulysses

    • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not just PGP, but any encryption strength above a certain level was considered “munitions” from a legal standpoint. Because of this, finding a windows Ssh client was a PITA for quite a while.

      • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Wait does imply that other encryption is broken since what would it matter if you used encryption greater than something the government allowed you to

        • Treczoks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 hours ago

          There was a limit on key strength at 40 bits. Americans were allowed 56 bits (OK, they didn’t really get the full 56 bits, but that is another story). The Electronic Frontier Foundation built “Deep Crack” in 1998, a custom machine that broke the 56 bit DES in two seconds, so it probably would have taken them 1/8 second to crack the 40 bit. This happened when the ban was still active.

          This led to two movements: creative export and hosting of >40 bit algorithms outside the US, and development of better algorithms outside the US, like Rijndaal, SERPENT, IDEA, E2, and other non-US AES-candidates.

        • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Nah, this was ages ago. I don’t remember the exact encryption strength, but it was pretty low, even by yesteryear standards. This was a remnant from the age when encryption basically meant cryptography was ruled by whichever government could find the biggest autistic savant.

          • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            18 hours ago

            I believe the encryption restrictions were relaxed in 1998.

            However, certification for import/export of nuclear weapons and other dangerous goods was still needed for strong encryption (such as phone SIM cards) as recently as 2006. To get on that list of people who could legally transport SIM cards not for personal use over the US border, you needed the same background check and government clearance as someone transporting enriched uranium.