New Zealand has banned possession of Tarrant's manifesto and it is mentioned that possessing the manifesto is a crime. None of the articles I read noted what the penalties are for possession, so I looked up the law referenced in the article above, the "Films, Videos & Publications Classification Act 1993". The maximum penalties are pretty staggering if I have these figured right:
- Mere possession without knowledge: $2000 fine for a person; corporate offenders $5k fine
- Mere possession with knowledge: 10 years in jail, $50k fine; corporate offenders $100k fine
- Distributes without knowledge (the "strict liability" part): $3000 fine, corporate offenders $10k fine
- Possession with the intent to share: 14 years in jail; corporate offenders $200k fine
New Zealand does have a Bill of Rights of sorts, but it is merely a statute rather than a superseding law — in other words, it's just fluff because typically, specific statutes prevail over general statutes and so a later enacted censorship law is going to trump a general 1A type "guarantee" of the freedom of expression. Worse, the NZ Bill of Rights has a built-in neutering provision:
Section 4 specifically denies the Act any supremacy over other legislation. The section states that Courts looking at cases under the Act cannot implicitly repeal or revoke, or make invalid or ineffective, or decline to apply any provision of any statute made by parliament, whether before or after the Act was passed because it is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Bill_of_Rights_Act_1990
(Score: 2, Insightful) by VLM on Sunday March 24 2019, @02:59PM (12 children)
Note New Zealand is a pretty shitty place to live, so don't be surprised it has shitty laws.
For example, take the case of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dwane_Bell [wikipedia.org]
Armed robber kills three people, got about a hundred convictions so he's in the can a long time, but he only got three years for killing three people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_murders [wikipedia.org]
Killed two relatives, got ten years each
The whole issue is merely Orwellian political censorship, because there's a genocide underway in NZ and "they" are trying to make it illegal to complain about it, and/or maybe the opposite being a weird attempt at drawing attention to the banned media via the Streisand effect.
On one hand there's racists in NZ who won't rest until the last white person has been replaced with a brown person, and on the other hand nobody would care about some political screed if the government hadn't made the thoughtcrime of reading it worse than they punish murder.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:12PM (6 children)
Source?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:31PM (1 child)
Of course the original ethnic group known as Kiwis was murdered by the pests brought in by the group currently called kiwis. We've been trying to stomp them out for years, but they keep breeding and immigrating. :-P
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:44PM
I will never understand why the guys who have been victims of immigration are OK with other immigration. "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday March 24 2019, @08:10PM
I wouldn't call it a genocide, but I would call it a disarmament.
New Zealand is the place where all of the elite are buying bug-out pads for when the populations of their home nations finally pick up those pitchforks and guns and come after them for being greedy pieces of shit. It makes perfect sense that New Zealand itself be disarmed to provide a more safe place for the elite. Globalist shitbags have been trying to accomplish this in the U.S. but have failed spectacularly, but it appears they have a pretty good track record of succeeding everywhere else they try this shit.
This is why the (((media))) are trying to push silence every time something like this happens. They have some vague manufactured evidence that it happened, then tell the rest of the public that they are not allowed to actually scrutinize that same evidence. It's a lot like if Obama were to have made it illegal to view anything regarding Bin Laden (and we all remember the "official" "nothing-to-see-here-move-along" "death" of Bin Laden). They ignore all the stories of kids and other innocents brutally slaughtered by immigrants, but one guy with a Pepe the frog t-shirt decides to shoot somebody and OOOYYYY VEEEEEY! Anuddah HOLOCAUST!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @09:44PM
VLM, all he wants for the Fourth of July is a white genocide. In other words, racist fake news! Kind of thing Tucker Carlson whispers, late at night, to Trump and to his Roomba.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday March 24 2019, @09:44PM
"This is ethnic replacement. This is cultural replacement. This is racial replacement. This is WHITE GENOCIDE." The Manifesto.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday March 25 2019, @03:59AM
It's this [wikipedia.org]. It also marks the OP as either a white supremacist or neo-Nazi, it's a major article of faith for that lot.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:52PM
any five eyes country is shitty and filled with morons
(Score: 5, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday March 24 2019, @08:26PM (3 children)
You've lived here for how long?
Yeah, thanks for that, from the country that sends more people to prison than any other.
I wonder when they're bringing my brown replacement in. It's been 50-odd years and I'm yet to see him.
New Zealand is a long way from perfect, but frankly you live in a country where you can be bankrupted for getting sick. Don't tell me I live in a shitty country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @11:18PM
It's part of the Five Eyes. Any country that conducts mass surveillance is necessarily very shitty.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday March 25 2019, @04:01AM
See also this [soylentnews.org] to explain where the OP is coming from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @07:22PM
fuck new zealand and your hijab wearing dhimmis. i will do my best to make sure i don't buy anything from new zealand and will never visit there. what a waste of nice land though.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:02PM (3 children)
https://register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/Pages/Screens/DDA/HelpPage.aspx#ClassificationExplanation [classificationoffice.govt.nz]
I counted 32 different classifications.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @05:06PM (2 children)
borken link
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday March 24 2019, @08:25PM (1 child)
Dang, sort of yes.
When I clicked it I got the same error thing and had to cancel. Then once I did that and clicked around to a couple of pages, presumably I got a brand new cookie, and the link worked fine again when I clicked it a second time. Annoying.
So rather than make everyone click twice, without further ado:
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 24 2019, @10:10PM
The media in question here falls under the most strict category: Objectionable:
(Score: 5, Insightful) by drussell on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:17PM (16 children)
While I certainly would not want to glorify something like this, the knee-jerk reaction to censor anything unpalatable these days is extremely dangerous.
I understand NZ wants to "tackle" the issues that lead to a tragedy like this but overreaction instead of measured, well contemplated pro-active action is the wrong course.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:29PM (6 children)
This is what happens when you elect the pearl clutching "won't somebody please think of the children" types for your leaders. This is a lesson we Americans should learn from.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @05:00PM (5 children)
Western politicians cannot deal with the problem because they are part of the problem. Anybody who read the manifesto knows that the NZ government is doing exactly what this murderous asshole wanted. So what happens after the next major Islamist atrocity? Is NZ going to ban Islamist propaganda like the Quran, Hadith and news footage of Jacinda Ardern prancing around in a hijab? Foolish woman may as well have recited the shahada!
(Score: 3, Troll) by jmorris on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:00PM (4 children)
No, everyone knows how the world actually works. When Islamists murder in the name of Islam we must all come together and stand with Muslim leaders to ensure there is no Islamophobic counter reaction against the peaceful majority of Muslims. When a White guy goes postal in reaction to Islamic slaughter we must stand with the local Muslim leaders to denounce the horrible xenophobia and Islamophobia and lament the continued existence of White people.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:57PM
Good thing we're not terrorized then. Quit your crying. Or are you scared of the bad guys?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @08:42PM
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/31824-silent-slaughter-media-quiet-as-muslims-kill-hundreds-of-christians-in-nigeria [thenewamerican.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @03:59PM (1 child)
Yeah, sucks to be privileged and have to check it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @07:24PM
it's not a privilege it's a fucking birthright, you stupid bitch.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:57PM (5 children)
"I understand NZ wants to "tackle" the issues that lead to a tragedy like this but overreaction instead of measured, well contemplated pro-active action is the wrong course."
After something happens, and when everyone is thinking about it, its 'too soon' and 'anything they do will be an overreaction'. And this is probably true.
Given current political systems, the only real solution I see is to pass the over-reaction law, and then fine tune them when those flaws become evident (I mean the flaws might well be evident to you and I right away but its not until a few people get ground in the mill that society as a whole will hopefully see the flaws are big enough to fix). Its far from perfect, but you aren't going to get perfect. And its better than always bleating its 'too soon' to talk about it every time someone gets killed, and then before enough time has passed (whatever that is supposed to be) someone gets killed again and its 'too soon' to talk about it all over again or alternatively... it's forgotten or overshadowed by some newer bigger crisis. Either way nothing gets done.
The time between 'too soon', and 'forgotten or overshadowed by something bigger' doesn't exist.
How is being perpetually paralyzed by the fear of over-reacting any better than over-reacting? Especially when the null action 'doing nothing' is proven not to be working?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday March 26 2019, @02:35PM (3 children)
I'd prefer to do it the other way -- if a law is required to address some situation, it should be as narrow as possible and can be updated later as the flaws become evident.
The problem is that the flaws in an overly strict law don't always become evident right away, or even at all. This law seems like a pretty good example -- are cops actually going to be searching peoples' homes and hard drives for copies of the banned document? Probably not. So you have no idea how many people might be violating the law and just not getting caught, and they may never get caught. But future laws get built not just upon what people are doing, but on the laws which already exist.
Laws are a lot like computer code. It's a complex system with a lot of parts interacting between each other. And you can never know how someone is going to use that law in twenty years, or what someone is going to build on top of it. If your code has the potential to lock someone in a cell or even get them killed, you better be damn sure that it's practically bulletproof. And the more unnecessary features you start piling on top of it, the harder it is to do that.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday March 26 2019, @05:56PM (2 children)
Of course, I'd prefer rational laws get passed too. However, in cases like this that doesn't happen. The laws get passed in 'crisis reaction mode' so they aren't going to be great. So a better solution is to have enshrined process to review laws, and allow fine tuning, and sunsets etc; so that laws that do get passed in crisis mode can get cleaned up after the fact when cooler heads are abundant.
You can't fight human nature, so its better to incorporate it into the 'process', and just assume shit laws are going to get passed at times like this. So I'd suggest we allow the laws to pass, but have automatic review by the courts to assess them for constitutionality for example, instead of waiting for a court challenge -- just have a court circuit where its their job to review new law, and hell... old law too. Likewise, automatic sunset clauses and renewal clauses to force congress to review a law at 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, etc. So that a ban on the manifesto for example, might pass today, and it might pass in 1 year... but 10 years out the fear of it going viral with copycats has subsided and librarians want to store it and universities want to include it in various courses and there will have been a changing of the guard in the legislative bodies so it'll have a chance to fall off the books without much fuss.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday March 26 2019, @06:36PM (1 child)
No matter what you're fighting against human nature to some extent. If it was human nature we'd already be doing it. We do have laws with these kinds of sunset clauses here in the US...and all that means is every 5-10 years a new congress just blindly re-approves it, because it's been in place this long so why bother to review it now? It's easier to force debate of something new than something that already exists.
Automatic court review might be nice, but who picks the judges and how do we prevent them from being subject to the very same "crisis reaction mode" thinking? And that could make it even harder to challenge the laws later, since they will have already passed judicial review...
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday March 27 2019, @12:32AM
"No matter what you're fighting against human nature to some extent."
The point is that
Automatic court review might be nice, but who picks the judges and how do we prevent them from being subject to the very same "crisis reaction mode" thinking?
Because they aren't elected, and aren't pandering to an electorate, and don't need to be "seen to be doing something" in a crisis. And the review can be scheduled a few months down the road so emotions aren't at peak pitch when they look at it, and so on.
"We do have laws with these kinds of sunset clauses here in the US...and all that means is every 5-10 years a new congress just blindly re-approves it, because it's been in place this long so why bother to review it now? It's easier to force debate of something new than something that already exists."
If and when it ever actually loses favor with the majority its much simpler for them to let it expire than it is have to do something to get rid of it.
I think your criticism is valid but suffers from confirmation bias -- you only see the laws that come up for renewal over and over again and keep getting renewed but you don't hear about the laws were allowed to expire. After all...
the assault weapons ban expired, CHIP expired, 9/11 first responders bill expired. I'm not even saying this is a good thing necessarily, but it does show that as a concept at least it does work.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeVilla on Friday March 29 2019, @04:09AM
How long until we "fine tune" the "over-reaction" laws from late 2001? I believe the US had a President elected in part on promises to roll back a lot of them. Relative to to the scale of the over reactions, I don't think we seen much corrective "fine tuning".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @11:22PM
The slope became a cliff!
Majority rule cannot protect our right to communicate freely. This is why we desperately need the tech to make censorship impractical. Ad hoc mesh networks, whatever. The internet is supposed to route around all damage, not cause it.
Don't waste time discussing the nature of content. Let's just knock down the walls that block it. Fuck the tyrants!
(Score: 4, Informative) by driverless on Monday March 25 2019, @04:04AM (1 child)
You're missing the point, it's not to censor it, it's to deny the shooter the publicity he's after. He did it for the publicity, NZ has said "we're not going to give him that publicity". In fact the NZ PM explicitly said this in her speech about it.
The US media OTOH is giving him all the publicity he could dream of, and more. Which means others will be encouraged to do the same.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @07:27PM
you have stockholm syndrome, you brainwashed cuckold.
(Score: 5, Informative) by EEMac on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:17PM (7 children)
https://pirateproxy.id/torrent/30730782/NZ_Shooter_Video___Manifesto___Pictures___Music.zip [pirateproxy.id]
[pirateproxy.id]https://pirateproxy.id/torrent/30761880/Brenton_Tarrant_-_The_Great_Replacement_(pdf)_-_roflcopter2110 [pirateproxy.id]
https://pirateproxy.id/torrent/30694790/Christchurch-Mosque-Shooting-New-Zealand-FULL-VIDEO.mp4 [pirateproxy.id]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:24PM (3 children)
Help! Help! He's sharing the propaganda! Someone stop this crime!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:32PM (1 child)
I'll get right on that. I always wanted me some propagator-skin boots.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:19PM
Joe Job the guy! Don't even have to slip the stuff onto his hard drive, it's probably already in his browser cache.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:12PM
Clown world [odt.co.nz]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @05:07PM
That's 14 years in the clink for you!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:42PM
You are telling me NZ has made a crime to possess a pdf with "roflcopter" in the filename?
Welcome to the ultimate troll: real life.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Codesmith on Monday March 25 2019, @12:46PM
Quick get some links to kiddie porn up there too! Isn't that censorship in action?
/s for the brain impaired.
Pro utilitate hominum.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:32PM (16 children)
let's hope that some monkeys slaving away in some factory cellar churning out all of shakespeare work
won't accidentally also write that string of banned letters or that the interpretation of some random
noise will yield the same ...
it would be sad also, if the symbol string received from an alien civilization for fusion tech or hyper warp
should include the same exact symbols-pattern in their message ...
what happened was probably really st0pid but having to hide information and make possession of data a crime will only
lead to more censorship until just enough documents and letters remain to criminally ban the removal of any more documents and letters?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:33PM (6 children)
I was wondering if memorizing it will get you thrown in prison.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:14PM (4 children)
Only if you repeat portions of it recognizable to the authorities.
Interesting questions: what if the manifesto were rebranded and published in pieces? How can you know if you're accidentally holding the illegal manifesto when it's not labeled as such? How can the authorities know, unless they have a complete copy for reference? Which authorities are exempt from the statute so they might hold complete copies for purposes of enforcement? Are these authorities required to be present at time of arrest, or merely prosecution? What if I have accidentally reproduced a portion of the manifesto with this very message, how much of the manifesto must be in possession to constitute a crime?
Thought crime is unenforceable at its most basic levels, but that doesn't stop "I know pornography when I see it" street-cop-judges from interpreting and enforcing the intent of the law, as they understand it.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:39PM
Well, no need to be concerned about the lack. They're working on it. [scientificamerican.com]
--
Wow. Apparently it's "rude" to ask the parents
of a kid on a leash if it was a rescue.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday March 26 2019, @02:45PM (2 children)
I was typing out a similar set of questions myself -- how much would you have to alter it before it became legal...but then I realized that most of these questions would also apply to freakin' Harry Potter -- ie, how much can you reproduce before it's a copyright violation? What if you change parts? What if you rebrand it? Probably similar logic would apply here...which likely means it's going to be up to a judge to decide on a case-by-case basis.
Although the part about the police having copies to compare to IS a new question, since unlike a copyrighted work, there's presumably nobody who does have a legal right to possess this manifesto.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 26 2019, @04:35PM (1 child)
Gotta outsource that to the Aussies, who have no such restrictions ;-)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday March 26 2019, @04:55PM
What, they can't send it to India? Sure, they'd have a higher false-positive rate, but the lawyers don't have a legal right to the evidence required to prove that... :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @04:35PM
there has to be a copy "somewhere" so as to be able to compare your alleged copy to. how else to know but to compare;
unless all banned symbole-strings are mandatory to be memorized by all aspiring judges? then no hard-copy needs to exist.
let's hope that dr. prof. judge can remember the text correctly when orally teaching it to his future judge students ^_^
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:45PM (8 children)
Running the above command has a vanishingly small chance of landing you in prison in a great many countries.
The fact it isn't going to happen doesn't mean much, since if you use a generator biased towards photorealistic images (e.g. a GAN) suddenly the chance goes way the fuck up until it's a real risk.
Using neural networks to generate random porn is going to land you in prison pretty quickly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:52PM (2 children)
Some cuntries ban fake and drawn photorealistic CP. The trained GAN is better than any typewriter monkey at making what you want.
If a bot posts fake threats on Twitter, can we drone bomb the coder?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:57PM (1 child)
The UK bans cartoon CP, no matter how realistic it is. Literal stick figures could qualify.
Requiring both intent and actual harm solves this problem.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:06PM
so I guess that
,______
------.______
would count in this situation: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=30693&page=1&cid=818352#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:06PM (4 children)
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:10PM (3 children)
How to decrypt a
DVD: in haiku form.
(Thanks, Prof. D. S. T.)
------------------------
(I abandon my
exclusive rights to make or
perform copies of
this work, U. S. Code
Title Seventeen, section
One Hundred and Six.)
Muse! When we learned to
count, little did we know all
the things we could do
some day by shuffling
those numbers: Pythagoras
said "All is number"
long before he saw
computers and their effects,
or what they could do
by computation,
naive and mechanical
fast arithmetic.
It changed the world, it
changed our consciousness and lives
to have such fast math
available to
us and anyone who cared
to learn programming.
Now help me, Muse, for
I wish to tell a piece of
controversial math,
for which the lawyers
of DVD CCA
don't forbear to sue:
that they alone should
know or have the right to teach
these skills and these rules.
(Do they understand
the content, or is it just
the effects they see?)
And all mathematics
is full of stories (just read
Eric Temple Bell);
and CSS is
no exception to this rule.
Sing, Muse, decryption
once secret, as all
knowledge, once unknown: how to
decrypt DVDs.
Arrays' elements
start with zero and count up
from there, don't forget!
Integers are four
bytes long, or thirty-two bits,
which is the same thing.
To decode these discs,
you need a master key, as
hardware vendors get.
(This is a "player
key" and some folks other than
vendors know them now.
If they didn't, there
is also a way not to
need one, to start off.)
You'll read a "disk key"
from the disc, and decrypt it
with that player key.
You'll read a "title
key" for the video file
that you want to play.
With the disk key, you
can decrypt the title key;
that decrypts the show.
Here's a description
of how a player key will
decrypt a disk key.
You need two things here:
An encrypted disk key, which
is just six bytes long.
(Only five of those
are the _key itself_, because
"zero" marks the end.
So that's five real bytes,
and eight times five is forty;
in the ideal case,
forty bits will yield
just short of two trillion
possible choices!
Ian Goldberg once
recovered a key that long
in seven half-hours.
But his office-mate
David Wagner points out that
it's _impossible_
to achieve what the
DVD CCA seems
to want to achieve,
even by making
the key some reasonable,
"adequate" key-length:
There's no way to write
a "secure" software player
which contains the key
and runs on PCs,
yet somehow prevents users
from extracting it.
If the player can
decrypt, Wagner has noted,
users can learn how.)
This is a pointer,
"KEY", to those bytes, and when we're
done, they'll be clear-text.
Oh, the other thing!
Called "im", a pointer to six
bytes: a player key.
(Now those six bytes, the
DVD CCA says
under penalty
of perjury, are
its trade secret, and you are
breaking the law if
you tell someone that,
for instance, the Xing player
used the following:
Eighty-one; and then
one hundred three -- two times; then
two hundred (less three);
two hundred twenty
four; and last (of course not least)
the humble zero.)
We will use these few
internal variables:
t1 through t6,
unsigned integers.
k, pointer to five unsigned
bytes. i, integer.
So here's how you do
it: first, take the first byte of
im -- that's byte zero;
OR that byte with the
number 0x100
(hexadecimal --
that's two hundred and
fifty-six to you if you
prefer decimal).
Store the result in
t1. Take byte one of im.
Store it in t2.
Take bytes two through five
of im; store them in t3.
Take its three low bits
(you can get them by
ANDing t3 with seven);
store this in t4.
Double t3, add
eight, subtract t4; store the
result in t3.
Make t5 zero.
Now we'll start a loop; set i
equal to zero.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:13PM (2 children)
i gets values from
zero up to four; each time,
do all of these steps:
Use t2 for an
index into Table Two:
find a byte b1.
Use t1 for an
index into Table Three:
find a byte b2.
Take exclusive OR
of b1 with b2 and
store this in t4.
Shift t1 right by
a single bit (like halving);
store this in t2.
Take the low bit of
t1 (so, AND it with one),
shift it left eight bits,
then take exclusive
OR of that with t4; store
this back in t1.
Use t4 for an
index into Table Four:
find a byte and store
it back in t4.
Shift t3 right by three bits,
take exclusive OR
of this with t3,
shift this right by one bit, and
take exclusive OR
of this with t3,
shift this right by eight bits, and
take exclusive OR
of this with t3,
shift this right by five bits, and
(No exclusive OR!
Orange you glad I
didn't say banana?) take
the low byte (by AND
with two hundred and
fifty-five); now store this
into t6. Phew!
Shift t3 left eight
bits, take OR with t6, and
store this in t3.
Use t6 for an
index into Table Four:
find a byte and store
it in t6. Add
t6, t5, t4; store
the sum in t5.
Take t5's low byte
(AND t5 with two hundred
fifty five) to put it
in the ith byte of
the vector called k. Now shift
t5 right eight bits;
store the result in
t5 again. Now that's the
last step in the loop.
No sooner have we
finished that loop than we'll start
another; no rest
for the wicked nor
those innocents whom lawyers
serve with paperwork.
Reader! Think not that
technical information
ought not be called speech;
think not diagrams,
schematics, tables, numbers,
formulae -- like the
terrifying and
uniquely moving, though cliche,
Einstein equation
"Energy is just
the same as matter, but for
a little factor,
speed of light by speed
of light, and we are ourselves
frozen energy."
Einstein's formula
to convert from joules into
kilogram-meters
squared per second squared,
for all its power, uses
just five characters.
But Einstein wrote to
physicists: formal, concise,
specific, detailed.
And sometimes we write
to machines to teach them how
tasks are carried out:
and sometimes we write
to our friends to show a way
tasks are carried out.
We write precisely
since such is our habit in
talking to machines;
we say exactly
how to do a thing or how
every detail works.
The poet has choice
of words and order, symbols,
imagery, and use
of metaphor. She
can allude, suggest, permit
ambiguities.
She need not say just
what she means, for readers can
always interpret.
Poets too, despite
their famous "license" sometimes
are constrained by rules:
How often have we
heard that some strange twist of plot
or phrase was simply
"Metri causa", for
the meter's sake, solely done
"to fit the meter"?
Programmers' art as
that of natural scientists
is to be precise,
complete in every
detail of description, not
leaving things to chance.
Reader, see how yet
technical communicants
deserve free speech rights;
see how numbers, rules,
patterns, languages you don't
yourself speak yet,
still should in law be
protected from suppression,
called valuable speech!
Ending my appeal
on that note, I will describe
the second loop. Store
nine in i; i gets
values from nine down to
naught. Each time, do this:
Use i+1 as
an index into Table
Zero: find a byte.
Call that byte p1.
Now use i for an index
in Table Zero:
find a byte and
call that byte p0. Now
use p1 as an
index into k
(a vector, remember?); thus
find a byte b1.
Use p1 as an
index into KEY, as well:
find a byte, use that
byte as an index
into Table One. Call the
byte you find b2.
Use p0 as
an index into KEY to
find a byte b3.
Take exclusive OR
of b1, b2, b3,
and store that in KEY
(not just anywhere,
though!). In KEY at the byte that's
indexed by p1.
That's it for that loop
and also for the task of
disk key decryption.
Title keys are next.
It isn't hard to decrypt
one. The rule's the same!
Well, there's one slight
change: where you use t6, it's
Table "Five", not "Four".
And this time im is
the decrypted disk key, and
KEY the title key.
How would you like to
hear how to decrypt _both_ the
disk and title keys?
All we'll need are the
encrypted versions and a
player key. No sweat!
We'll call the title
key TKEY, a pointer to
six bytes, encrypted.
We'll call the disk key
DKEY, a pointer to six
bytes, encrypted too.
We will use a few
internal variables,
once again: so i,
an integer, will
serve again as loop index.
im1 is six bytes,
im2 is six bytes.
Both vectors and the latter
holds our player key.
Now I told you once
about a player key I
think they gave to Xing --
I don't know this for
sure; DVD CCA
said so in court, though.
Otherwise I'd say
that this is just a "magic
number" from on high,
vouchsafed to mortals
from the mouths of the Muses
for our benefit.
In reality
I'm told it was discovered
by M.o.R.E.,
some Europeans
two-thirds of whom are today
still anonymous.
I don't want to make
a long excursus right now
on why that's not bad:
reverse engineers
in many fields are heroes
of technology,
for advancing the
knowledge of their colleagues or
of the public mind.
Yet in software the
recent trend has been to brand
tinkerers as thieves!
I urge you to read
the Crypto-gram newletter
on why that's not so.
Bruce can make the point
better there than I can here,
sticking to haiku.
So this number is,
once again, the player key:
(trade secret haiku?)
"Eighty-one; and then
one hundred three -- two times; then
two hundred (less three);
two hundred twenty
four; and last (of course not least)
the humble zero."
If you didn't know
a valid player key, then
you could find one out --
ask Frank Stevenson,
or his fellow programmer
wise Andreas Bogk.
All we have to do
is this: copy our DKEY
into im1,
use the rule above
that decrypts a disk key (with
im1 and its
friend im2 as
inputs) -- thus we decrypt the
disk key im1.
Use the rule above
that decrypts a title key.
TKEY and our new
disk key im1
are inputs now -- we decrypt
TKEY, and we're done.
That was straightforward.
Probably we didn't need
to explain this part,
but computers are
very literal, so we
might as well do so.
This part is really
exciting for movie fans:
decrypt DVDs!
Well, at least sectors
of DVDs, but they are
made up of sectors.
Sectors (of two to
the eleventh bytes) are the
encryption units.
Rejoice then, get some
popcorn out, and butter if
you aren't vegan.
Margarine works well
if you're vegan, or if you
are watching your weight.
I've heard you can put
tarragon on your popcorn.
I haven't tried it.
Why did I tell you
to rejoice? Because we are
about to watch a
movie, at least if
we have a good MPEG-2
player close at hand.
We need two things now,
though, beyond our MPEG-2
players and popcorn:
A vector "SEC" of
two thousand forty-eight bytes,
disk sector contents.
(These start off in their
encrypted form, but we will
leave them decrypted.)
And a vector KEY
of six bytes, the decrypted
title key we'll use.
We will use these few
internal variables:
t1 through t6,
unsigned integers.
Remember those from before?
END is a pointer
to the end of the
sector, which is SEC plus two
thousand forty-eight.
Take the first byte of
KEY (that's byte zero), perform
exclusive OR with
byte eighty-four of
SEC. Treating the result as
an integer, take
OR of that with two
hundred fifty-six. Store the
result in t1.
Take the next byte (which
is byte one) of KEY, perform
exclusive OR with
the next byte of SEC
(byte eighty-five, right?); store the
result in t2.
Take bytes two through five
of KEY and take exclusive
OR of these with their
counterparts abroad,
bytes eighty-six through eighty-nine
of our sector SEC.
Store this in t3.
(It will fit because it is
four bytes, like t3.)
I must quote myself
because we're going to do
some things once again:
(Above, in the first
part, we talked about t3:)
"Take its three low bits
(you can get them by
ANDing t3 with seven);
store this in t4.
Double t3, add
eight, subtract t4; store the
result in t3."
(Now increment SEC
by one hundred twenty-eight!)
"Make t5 zero."
Now start a loop, and
do these things as long as SEC
doesn't equal END:
Use t2 for an
index into Table Two:
find a byte b1.
Use t1 for an
index into Table Three:
find a byte b2.
Take exclusive OR
of b1 with b2 and
store this in t4.
Shift t1 right by
a single bit (like halving);
store this in t2.
Take the low bit of
t1 (so, AND it with one),
shift it left eight bits,
then take exclusive
OR of that with t4; store
this back in t1.
(The step that's coming
up is _slightly_ different from
the original.)
Use t4 for an
index into Table Five:
find a byte and store
it back in t4.
Shift t3 right by three bits,
take exclusive OR
of this with t3,
shift this right by one bit, and
take exclusive OR
of this with t3,
shift this right by eight bits, and
take exclusive OR
of this with t3,
shift this right by five bits, and
(No exclusive OR!
Orange you glad I
didn't say banana?) take
the low byte (by AND
with two hundred and
fifty-five); now store this
into t6. Phew!
Shift t3 left eight
bits, take OR with t6, and
store this in t3.
Use t6 for an
index into Table Four:
find a byte and store
it in t6. Add
t6, t5, t4; store
the sum in t5.
(Again, here's a change
from the original steps:
please don't get confused.)
In Table One use
the byte SEC points to as an
index, get a byte
there, take exclusive
OR of that byte with the low
byte of t5; store
the result where SEC
points, and increment SEC by
one. This is all that
has changed in these steps.
And we're almost done! Now shift
t5 right eight bits;
store the result in
t5 again. That is the
last step in the loop.
Now I want a drink
(mnemonics in crypto poems
are great!); exercise
from singing so long
makes me thirst for a glass of
soda, slice of pie.
For this is the end
of the decryption process;
you can now go home.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:16PM (1 child)
But wait! I hear a
voice entreating me to stay:
"O, the Tables tell!"
Alas, I have not
as yet declared to you the
CSS Tables.
This is a major
issue, in that I don't know
what these tables _mean_:
our noble guide has
told us in outline what they
are for, or something
of their structure. But
to me, a humble poet
of mathematics,
they are opaque, they
are certain combinations
of ancient, noble
Number. Their inner
logic, aitia, telos,
still unknown to me.
Herein a clear free
speech question: would courts see fit
to muzzle me, then,
from speaking numbers,
technical data, which I
did not make and more
cannot memorize,
cannot explain in detail,
cannot understand?
I have these numbers.
They have meaning, this is clear:
else why suppress them?
I wish to speak or
let the Muse announce through me
Tables of Numbers.
Professor Moglen!
Help defend my right to share
these numbers with you!
You called the right to
speak with PGP like that
to use Navaho.
Help me then in my
haiku quest to share these bits,
and not be censored.
Preserve my right to
speak here, in this extreme, these
mystery Tables
the products, pieces
of technique, which but a very
few will understand.
Mary Jo White, the
United States Attorney
for S.D.N.Y.,
your logic erodes
any meaningful power
Internet speakers
would retain against
state censorship. Do you care?
Have you any shame?
Fight, brave amici,
with effective, functional
argumentation.
I'll try to help by
singing these octets, until
court orders forbid.
(Sad to say, I have
removed hyphens in numbers:
poetic license.)
Table Zero is:
Five, zero, one, two, three, four,
oh, one, two, three, four.
Table One is long:
two to the eighth power bytes.
Ready? Here they are:
Fifty one; then one
hundred fifteen; fifty nine;
thirty eight; ninety
nine; thirty five; one
hundred seven; one hundred
eighteen; sixty two;
one hundred twenty
six; fifty four; forty three;
one hundred ten; then
forty six; then one
hundred two; one hundred and
twenty three; then two
hundred eleven;
one hundred forty seven;
two hundred nineteen;
six; sixty seven;
three; seventy five; then one
hundred fifty; two
hundred twenty two;
one hundred fifty eight; two
hundred fourteen; then
eleven; and then
seventy eight; fourteen; then
seventy; then one
hundred fifty five;
eighty seven; twenty three;
ninety five; then one
hundred thirty; one
hundred ninety nine; then one
hundred thirty five;
two hundred seven;
eighteen; ninety; twenty six;
eighty two; then one
hundred forty three;
two hundred two; one hundred
thirty eight; then one
hundred ninety four;
thirty one; two hundred and
seventeen; then one
hundred fifty three;
two hundred nine; zero; then
seventy three; nine;
sixty five; then one
hundred forty four; then two
hundred sixteen; one
hundred fifty two;
two hundred eight; one; and then
seventy two; eight;
sixty four; then one
hundred forty five; sixty
one; one hundred and
twenty five; fifty
three; thirty six; one hundred
nine; forty five; one
hundred one; then one
hundred sixteen; sixty; one
hundred twenty four;
fifty two; thirty
seven; one hundred eight; then
forty four; then one
hundred; one hundred
seventeen; two hundred and
twenty one; then one
hundred and fifty
seven; two hundred thirteen;
four; seventy plus
seven; thirteen; then
sixty nine; one hundred and
forty eight; then two
hundred twenty; one
hundred fifty six; then two
hundred twelve; five; then
seventy six; twelve;
sixty eight; one hundred and
forty nine; eighty
nine; twenty five; then
eighty one; one hundred and
twenty eight; then two
hundred one; then one
hundred thirty seven; one
hundred ninety three;
sixteen; eighty eight;
twenty four; eighty; then one
hundred twenty nine;
two hundred; then one
hundred thirty six; then one
hundred ninety two;
seventeen; then two
hundred fifteen; one hundred
fifty one; then two
hundred twenty three;
two; seventy one; seven;
seventy nine; one
hundred forty six;
two hundred eighteen; then one
hundred fifty four;
two hundred ten; then
fifteen; seventy four; ten;
sixty six; then one
hundred fifty nine;
eighty three; nineteen; ninety
one; one hundred and
thirty four; then one
hundred ninety five; then one
hundred thirty one;
two hundred three; then
twenty two; ninety four; then
thirty; eighty six;
one hundred thirty
nine; two hundred six; then one
hundred forty two;
one hundred ninety
eight; twenty seven; then one
hundred seventy
nine; two hundred and
forty three; one hundred and
eighty seven; one
hundred sixty six;
two hundred twenty seven;
one hundred sixty
three; two hundred and
thirty five; two hundred and
forty six; then one
hundred ninety; two
hundred fifty four; then one
hundred eighty two;
then one hundred and
seventy one; two hundred
thirty eight; then one
hundred seventy
four; two hundred thirty; two
hundred fifty one;
fifty five; then one
hundred nineteen; sixty three;
thirty four; then one
hundred three; thirty
nine; one hundred eleven;
one hundred fourteen;
fifty eight; then one
hundred twenty two; fifty;
forty seven; one
hundred six; forty
two; ninety eight; one hundred
twenty seven; one
hundred eighty five;
two hundred forty nine; one
hundred seventy
seven; one hundred
sixty; two hundred thirty
three; one hundred and
sixty nine; then two
hundred twenty five; then two
hundred forty; one
hundred eighty four;
two hundred forty eight; one
hundred seventy
six; one hundred and
sixty one; two hundred and
thirty two; then one
hundred sixty eight;
two hundred twenty four; two
hundred forty one;
ninety three; twenty
nine; eighty five; one hundred
thirty two; then two
hundred five; then one
hundred forty one; then one
hundred and ninety
seven; twenty; then
ninety two; twenty eight; then
eighty four; then one
hundred thirty three;
two hundred four; one hundred
forty; one hundred
ninety six; twenty
one; one hundred eighty nine;
two hundred fifty
three; one hundred and
eighty one; one hundred and
sixty four; then two
hundred and thirty
seven; then one hundred and
seventy three; two
hundred twenty nine;
two hundred forty four; one
hundred eighty eight;
two hundred fifty
two; one hundred eighty; one
hundred sixty five;
two hundred thirty
six; one hundred seventy
two; two hundred and
twenty eight; then two
hundred forty five; fifty
seven; one hundred
twenty one; forty
nine; thirty two; one hundred
five; forty one; then
ninety seven; one
hundred twelve; fifty six; one
hundred twenty; then
forty eight; thirty
three; one hundred four; forty;
ninety six; then one
hundred thirteen; one
hundred eighty three; then two
hundred and forty
seven; one hundred
ninety one; one hundred and
sixty two; then two
hundred thirty one;
one hundred sixty seven;
two hundred thirty
nine; two hundred and
forty two; one hundred and
eighty six; then two
hundred fifty; one
hundred seventy eight; one
hundred seventy
five; two hundred and
thirty four; one hundred and
seventy; then two
hundred twenty six;
two hundred fifty five.
That's the whole Table.
Just when you thought it
was safe, here is Table Two,
which has the same length:
Zero; one; two; three;
four; five; six; seven; nine; eight;
eleven; ten; then
thirteen; twelve; fifteen;
fourteen; eighteen; nineteen; then
sixteen; seventeen;
twenty two; twenty
three; twenty; twenty one; then
twenty seven; then
twenty six; twenty
five; twenty four; thirty one;
thirty; twenty nine;
twenty eight; thirty
six; thirty seven; thirty
eight; thirty nine; then
thirty two; thirty
three; thirty four; thirty five;
forty five; forty
four; forty seven;
forty six; forty one; then
forty; forty three;
forty two; fifty
four; fifty five; fifty two;
fifty three; fifty;
fifty one; forty
eight; forty nine; sixty three;
sixty two; sixty
one; sixty; fifty
nine; fifty eight; fifty plus
seven; fifty six;
seventy three; then
seventy two; seventy
five; seventy four;
seventy seven;
seventy six; seventy
nine; seventy eight;
sixty four; sixty
five; sixty six; sixty plus
seven; sixty eight;
sixty nine; and then
seventy; seventy one;
ninety one; ninety;
eighty nine; eighty
eight; ninety five; ninety four;
ninety three; ninety
two; eighty two; then
eighty three; eighty; eighty
one; eighty six; then
eighty seven; then
eighty four; eighty five; one
hundred nine; then one
hundred eight; then one
hundred eleven; then one
hundred ten; then one
hundred five; then one
hundred four; one hundred and
seven; one hundred
six; one hundred; one
hundred one; one hundred two;
one hundred three; then
ninety six; ninety
seven; ninety eight; ninety
nine; one hundred and
twenty seven; one
hundred twenty six; then one
hundred twenty five;
one hundred twenty
four; one hundred twenty three;
one hundred twenty
two; one hundred and
twenty one; one hundred and
twenty; one hundred
eighteen; one hundred
nineteen; one hundred sixteen;
then one hundred and
seventeen; then one
hundred fourteen; one hundred
fifteen; one hundred
twelve; one hundred and
thirteen; one hundred forty
six; one hundred and
forty seven; one
hundred forty four; then one
hundred forty five;
one hundred fifty;
one hundred fifty one; one
hundred forty eight;
one hundred forty
nine; one hundred fifty five;
one hundred fifty
four; one hundred and
fifty three; one hundred and
fifty two; then one
hundred fifty nine;
one hundred fifty eight; one
hundred and fifty
seven; one hundred
fifty six; one hundred and
twenty eight; then one
hundred twenty nine;
one hundred thirty; then one
hundred thirty one;
one hundred thirty
two; one hundred thirty three;
one hundred thirty
four; one hundred and
thirty five; one hundred and
thirty seven; one
hundred thirty six;
one hundred thirty nine; one
hundred thirty eight;
one hundred forty
one; one hundred forty; one
hundred forty three;
one hundred forty
two; one hundred eighty two;
one hundred eighty
three; one hundred and
eighty; one hundred eighty
one; one hundred and
seventy eight; one
hundred seventy nine; one
hundred seventy
six; one hundred and
seventy seven; then one
hundred ninety one;
one hundred ninety;
one hundred eighty nine; one
hundred eighty eight;
one hundred eighty
seven; one hundred eighty
six; one hundred and
eighty five; then one
hundred eighty four; then one
hundred sixty four;
one hundred sixty
five; one hundred sixty six;
one hundred sixty
seven; one hundred
sixty; one hundred sixty
one; one hundred and
sixty two; then one
hundred sixty three; then one
hundred seventy
three; one hundred and
seventy two; one hundred
seventy five; one
hundred seventy
four; one hundred sixty nine;
one hundred sixty
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:18PM
eight; one hundred and
seventy one; one hundred
seventy; then two
hundred nineteen; two
hundred eighteen; two hundred
seventeen; then two
hundred sixteen; two
hundred twenty three; then two
hundred twenty two;
two hundred twenty
one; two hundred twenty; two
hundred ten; then two
hundred eleven;
two hundred eight; two hundred
nine; two hundred and
fourteen; two hundred
fifteen; two hundred twelve; two
hundred thirteen; two
hundred one; then two
hundred; two hundred three; two
hundred two; then two
hundred five; then two
hundred four; two hundred and
seven; two hundred
six; one hundred and
ninety two; one hundred and
ninety three; then one
hundred ninety four;
one hundred ninety five; one
hundred ninety six;
one hundred ninety
seven; one hundred ninety
eight; one hundred and
ninety nine; then two
hundred fifty five; then two
hundred fifty four;
two hundred fifty
three; two hundred fifty two;
two hundred fifty
one; two hundred and
fifty; two hundred forty
nine; two hundred and
forty eight; then two
hundred forty six; then two
hundred and forty
seven; two hundred
forty four; two hundred and
forty five; then two
hundred forty two;
two hundred forty three; two
hundred forty; two
hundred forty one;
two hundred thirty seven;
two hundred thirty
six; two hundred and
thirty nine; two hundred and
thirty eight; then two
hundred thirty three;
two hundred thirty two; two
hundred thirty five;
two hundred thirty
four; two hundred twenty eight;
two hundred twenty
nine; two hundred and
thirty; two hundred thirty
one; two hundred and
twenty four; then two
hundred twenty five; then two
hundred twenty six;
two hundred twenty
seven. That's the end of the
Table Two listing.
Table Three repeats
itself sixty-four times with
this eight-byte sequence:
Zero, thirty six,
seventy three, one hundred
nine, one hundred and
forty six, then one
hundred eighty two, and then
two hundred nineteen,
and last of all, two
to the eighth, less one (or two
hundred fifty five).
Dr. Touretzky
has a more concise account
of what Table Four
is for, and where it
comes from; but for now, I think
I will just list it:
Zero; one hundred
twenty eight; sixty four; one
hundred ninety two;
thirty two; then one
hundred sixty; ninety six;
two hundred twenty
four; sixteen; then one
hundred forty four; eighty;
two hundred eight; then
forty eight; then one
hundred seventy six; one
hundred twelve; then two
hundred forty; eight;
one hundred thirty six; then
seventy two; two
hundred; forty; one
hundred sixty eight; then one
hundred four; then two
hundred thirty two;
twenty four; one hundred and
fifty two; eighty
eight; two hundred and
sixteen; fifty six; then one
hundred eighty four;
one hundred twenty;
two hundred forty eight; four;
one hundred thirty
two; sixty eight; one
hundred ninety six; thirty
six; one hundred and
sixty four; then one
hundred; two hundred twenty
eight; twenty; then one
hundred forty eight;
eighty four; two hundred twelve;
fifty two; then one
hundred eighty; one
hundred sixteen; two hundred
forty four; twelve; one
hundred forty; then
seventy six; two hundred
four; forty four; one
hundred seventy
two; one hundred eight; then two
hundred thirty six;
twenty eight; then one
hundred fifty six; ninety
two; two hundred and
twenty; sixty; one
hundred eighty eight; then one
hundred twenty four;
two hundred fifty
two; two; one hundred thirty;
sixty six; then one
hundred ninety four;
thirty four; one hundred and
sixty two; ninety
eight; two hundred and
twenty six; eighteen; then one
hundred forty six;
eighty two; then two
hundred ten; fifty; then one
hundred seventy
eight; one hundred and
fourteen; two hundred forty
two; ten; one hundred
thirty eight; and then
seventy four; two hundred
two; forty two; one
hundred seventy;
one hundred six; two hundred
thirty four; twenty
six; one hundred and
fifty four; ninety; then two
hundred eighteen; then
fifty eight; then one
hundred eighty six; then one
hundred twenty two;
two hundred fifty;
six; one hundred thirty four;
seventy; then one
hundred ninety eight;
thirty eight; one hundred and
sixty six; then one
hundred two; then two
hundred thirty; twenty two;
one hundred fifty;
eighty six; then two
hundred fourteen; fifty four;
one hundred eighty
two; one hundred and
eighteen; two hundred forty
six; fourteen; then one
hundred forty two;
seventy eight; two hundred
six; forty six; one
hundred seventy
four; one hundred ten; then two
hundred thirty eight;
thirty; one hundred
fifty eight; ninety four; two
hundred twenty two;
sixty two; then one
hundred ninety; one hundred
twenty six; then two
hundred fifty four;
one; one hundred twenty nine;
sixty five; then one
hundred ninety three;
thirty three; one hundred and
sixty one; ninety
seven; two hundred
twenty five; seventeen; one
hundred forty five;
eighty one; then two
hundred nine; forty nine; one
hundred seventy
seven; one hundred
thirteen; two hundred forty
one; nine; one hundred
thirty seven; then
seventy three; two hundred
one; forty one; one
hundred sixty nine;
one hundred five; two hundred
thirty three; twenty
five; one hundred and
fifty three; eighty nine; two
hundred seventeen;
fifty seven; one
hundred eighty five; then one
hundred twenty one;
two hundred forty
nine; five; one hundred thirty
three; sixty nine; one
hundred and ninety
seven; thirty seven; one
hundred sixty five;
one hundred one; two
hundred twenty nine; twenty
one; one hundred and
forty nine; eighty
five; two hundred thirteen; then
fifty three; then one
hundred eighty one;
one hundred seventeen; two
hundred forty five;
thirteen; one hundred
forty one; seventy plus
seven; two hundred
five; forty five; one
hundred seventy three; one
hundred nine; then two
hundred and thirty
seven; twenty nine; then one
hundred and fifty
seven; ninety three;
two hundred twenty one; then
sixty one; then one
hundred eighty nine;
one hundred twenty five; two
hundred fifty three;
three; one hundred and
thirty one; sixty seven;
one hundred ninety
five; thirty five; one
hundred sixty three; ninety
nine; two hundred and
twenty seven; then
nineteen; one hundred forty
seven; eighty three;
then two hundred and
eleven; fifty one; one
hundred seventy
nine; one hundred and
fifteen; two hundred forty
three; eleven; one
hundred thirty nine;
seventy five; two hundred
three; forty three; one
hundred seventy
one; one hundred seven; two
hundred thirty five;
twenty seven; one
hundred fifty five; ninety
one; two hundred and
nineteen; fifty nine;
one hundred eighty seven;
one hundred twenty
three; two hundred and
fifty one; seven; then one
hundred thirty five;
seventy one; one
hundred ninety nine; thirty
nine; one hundred and
sixty seven; one
hundred three; two hundred and
thirty one; twenty
three; one hundred and
fifty one; eighty seven;
two hundred fifteen;
fifty five; then one
hundred eighty three; then one
hundred nineteen; two
hundred and forty
seven; fifteen; one hundred
forty three; and then
seventy nine; two
hundred seven; forty plus
seven; one hundred
seventy five; one
hundred eleven; then two
hundred thirty nine;
thirty one; then one
hundred fifty nine; ninety
five; two hundred and
twenty three; sixty
three; one hundred ninety one;
one hundred twenty
seven; two hundred
fifty five. And that's the end
of the fourth Table.
(You'll get Table Five
if you flip each bit in the
Table Four, supra.)
Have mercy on me,
Lord, and lesser judges, and
on Jon Johansen.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:33PM (7 children)
So you're telling me I absolutely shouldn't under any circumstances check to see if my users have uploaded it, because then it's possession with knowledge?
Knowledge isn't intent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:57PM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 24 2019, @05:12PM (4 children)
I don't think so:
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:19PM (2 children)
Sounds like somebody needs to buy a bunch of cheap, undersized micro SD cards, fill 'em with manifestae (is there a plural of manifesto?) and slip them into letters of inquiry mailed to all the politicians involved in the bill - said letters will then be in the politician's possession, including the electronic copy of the manifesto.
How long does one have to possess with knowledge before the possession with knowledge penalties kick in? What if you know you have it (such as a press release informing the politicians that they have received the electronic copies), but you don't know where?
How about we just pass a referendum to lock up the legislators until the next elections are complete?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:44PM
Unfortunately I'd probably be imprisoned for doing it, but I sure hope someone in a better country does that. Someone here once emailed encrypted evidence of a crime to the home secretary, at a time when not providing the decryption key was criminal regardless of whether one knew it.
Strict liability laws are evil.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:30PM
The politicians would likely just apply an exception to themselves:
Laws are there only to punish the average joe.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 24 2019, @08:58PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @05:13PM
in the coming 'future', it will be intent. Dont dare you think...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:13PM (1 child)
Let's ban 9/11 videos, news and of course false propaganda about various situations ins Syria notoriously repeated in USA's media... Oops, this would not drive the mob correctly and they may even think why the hell people are joining ISIS and similar groups and what USA has with it. Better make everyone read the Manifesto by Streisand effect and go with the divisions and internal war.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:21PM
We're un-officially heading there with suppression of anti-vax, flat earth, and other "BAD SCIENCE!!!" messaging.
Why not continue down that road with 9/11 conspiracy theories, Area 51 speculation, etc. etc.?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Troll) by Bot on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:41PM (16 children)
Every place can have the threshold for reaction set however they like.
For example, if the INTEGRATED senegalese immigrant, with his citizenship, and his DUI, and his rape of a 17yo (unpunished by jail), sets on fire a bus full of children with the intent to kill, NZ will ban immigration and islamic propaganda, the day after. Right?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:44PM (8 children)
The law does not grant rights, it recognizes them.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:50PM
I misunderstood the first sentence, and didn't read the rest of the post. Sorry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:00PM (1 child)
human rights, as foggy as the definition is, are not denied because of lack of citizenship.
or i did misunderstand your foggy post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @10:52PM
I thought they were saying that NZ can ban whatever they want to since it's their country, rather than making a point about misattribution of blame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:48PM (4 children)
Laws are a step towards letting you act on your rights. Real support for your rights comes from a judge willing to give force to those laws, and the police not feel supported to act against you.
Practically, your "unalienable natural rights" are worth the paper they are printed on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @10:50PM (3 children)
They are supported by laws sure, but the rights per se are worth a clean conscience and the tolerance of people worth interacting with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @11:00PM (2 children)
Rights are alienable.
R v Brown is a fucking travesty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @04:22AM (1 child)
I was referring to the concept of the "unalienable" "natural" rights as mentioned in the US Declaration of Independence and people who say that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights (as in "the citizens already have those rights").
Without the First Amendment, knowing that you have rights may be comforting to you in prison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @07:32AM
I didn't mention the US, don't live there, and disagree strongly with the bill of rights' assertion that rights are inalienable, along with the third, fifth, and sixth amendments. The people who say it doesn't grant rights are backed up by the ninth amendment.
I didn't imply rights are natural, they aren't.
I also didn't imply that having those rights would protect me from prison, nobody believes that except perhaps some delusional folk which think the world is intrinsically just.
I aren't protected by the first amendment to the US's constitution, or any law, and as such avoid exercising certain rights to avoid prison. It wouldn't be comforting in the slightest if I were imprisoned for an action I'd the right to perform, it'd be infuriating.
You seem to be responding to a person who lives more in your imagination than the real world.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:03PM (4 children)
You are rather sick individual aren't you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:13PM
He was programmed to hate your race.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 25 2019, @02:04AM (2 children)
Asking for irrational double standards to be justified is a mental illness? LOL socialists, red, black, always the same tactics.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @06:14PM
Rather ugly, yet attractive too!
(Going for a triple standard....)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @06:38PM
You do realize this means you support the NZ shooter's ideology to a significant degree yes? I'll let you trip over yourself with semantics, simple fact is your an alt-right fuckwad. Please ruin the country some more Mr. Fuckwad!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:30PM
Thats different because he only did it because of an offensive online video, not his fault.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:39PM
For those who don't know about this incident (I hadn't heard of it): https://news.yahoo.com/italy-driver-hijacks-torches-school-bus-212438349.html [yahoo.com]
(Score: 4, Touché) by Sulla on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:57PM (1 child)
You know what 100% would have prevented the attack?
Banning Australians.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @05:13PM
Now that's what I call extreme vetting!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @05:01PM
Freedom of speech should be a human right.
This includes stuff like this.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @05:59PM
never go full estrogen
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:47PM
Millenia pass by, empires rise and fall into oblivion, and only human stupidity is eternal.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by istartedi on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:26PM
By all means, rule from your emotions and hue to the cry of those who seek to placate the fury that arises immediately after tragedy. It's worked so well for us, for now we have emptied over $1 trillion from the treasury, spilled more than twice as much of our own blood, and orders of magnitude more of foreign blood. We are routinely groped at the airport. This was our Founder's sincerest dream from the outset, and we can't imagine why it wasn't fulfilled earlier.
Sarcastically, An American.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 1) by liberza on Sunday March 24 2019, @08:02PM (4 children)
If a mass email goes out to New Zealanders containing the manifesto, does that mean the govt hits the $2K fine jackpot?
What if it's loaded in the background by an otherwise normal-looking site and cached by their browser?
(Score: 1) by liberza on Sunday March 24 2019, @08:04PM (3 children)
If it gets embedded in the Bitcoin blockchain, does it become illegal to use Bitcoin in NZ?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @08:12PM (1 child)
It already is embedded, along with anything else you can imagine. Someone just needs to write a parser that interprets the 0s and 1s that way. Here is a crypto (not that it matters but the xaya genesis) block in hexadecimal:
Anyone can write software to interpret those bytes however they want.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday March 25 2019, @04:48PM
Nah, that's just the count-down. Once it reaches zero, then check-mate.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @10:55PM
Prosecutorial discretion means law makers only have to ensure that everything they want to be illegal is illegal, rather than making sure that things are illegal if and only if they want them to be illegal. It's a huge threat to rule of law.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday March 24 2019, @08:28PM
A penalty for UNKNOWING possession is an affront to justice.
And what's with valuing an individual's 10 YEARS in jail with only $50,000 in corporate fines? Unless a typical house in NZ goes for about $5,000, something's out of whack there.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pkrasimirov on Sunday March 24 2019, @08:50PM (1 child)
Terrorists win.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2019, @05:56PM
Babality!