Apple Filed A Silly, Questionable DMCA Notice On A Tweeted iPhone Encryption Key… Before Backing Down
from the copyright? dept
Copyright continues to serve its purpose as a tool for censorship, it seems. This week there was some hubbub over Apple’s highly questionable decision to send a DMCA takedown notice over a tweet by a security researcher who goes by “Siguza,” and who appeared to publish an iPhone encryption key on Twitter:
iPhone11,8 17C5053a sepi 9f974f1788e615700fec73006cc2e6b533b0c6c2b8cf653bdbd347bc1897bdd66b11815f036e94c951250c4dda916c00
— Siguza (@s1guza) December 8, 2019
Twitter took it down upon receipt of the takedown notice, but later put it back after Apple rescinded the takedown — either realizing that the takedown was bogus or futile (or, I guess, both).
You can understand (sorta) why Apple would want to protect the key, but copyright seems like exactly the wrong tool for the job. Of course, that’s often the case, but copyright is such an easy tool to abuse to try to silence speech that it is often the preferred tool of would-be censors. This is just one example. But it does raise questions. Is an encryption key even copyright-eligible? That seems highly unlikely. Copyright only is supposed to apply to the creative elements of a work, and it would be difficult to argue that an encryption key meets the “creative” level necessary. US courts have already decided that phone numbers are not subject to copyright (even made up numbers), so it seems unlikely that an encryption key would pass muster for getting a copyright.
Potentially Apple could have been making a DMCA 1201 “anti-circumvention” argument as well — but even that seems silly, and only highlights the problems of the anti-circumvention provisions of Section 1201 of the DMCA. When a single tweet with a single code is seen as “circumvention” then there’s a big problem — and that problem is the law.
It’s good that Apple backed down on this, though it still highlights the problems of the DMCA takedown process, and how it can be used unfairly for censorship — even if that “censorship” completely backfired this time.
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, dmca, encryption key, jailbreaking, research, security, siguza
Companies: apple, twitter
Comments on “Apple Filed A Silly, Questionable DMCA Notice On A Tweeted iPhone Encryption Key… Before Backing Down”
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
And #FF00FF just for good measure.
Re: Re:
And don’t forget 46 DC EA D3 17 FE 45 D8 09 23 EB 97 E4 95 64 10 D4 CD B2 C2.
Re: And the most important key ????
68 74 74 70 73 3A 2F 2F 77 77 77 2E 79 6F 75 74 75 62 65 2E 63 6F 6D 2F 77 61 74 63 68 3F 76 3D 55 6A 31 79 6B 5A 57 74 50 59 49
Does DMCA have a provision for anti-circumvention takedown notices? I thought DMCA takedown notices could only be used for copyright infringement.
It wasn't sent by Apple
The DMCA Notice was fake. It was sent by a troll and not Apple. This article needs to be updated.
Re: It wasn't sent by Apple
Not so fast!
Dr Apple is a Partner at Kilpatrick Townsend, which is the firm that filed the notice. He could well have sent the notice.
And being an IP firm, it’s conceivable that he could even have sent it on behalf of Apple, Inc.
Re: It wasn't sent by Apple
There’s a followup article: Bogus DMCA Notices Still A Huge Problem As Apple Gets Unfairly Blamed For Reddit Takedown
The DMCA notice sent to Twitter, as mentioned in this story, did come from Apple; Apple has confirmed it (see the linked Motherboard article). The notices sent to Reddit were fraudulent.
Re: It wasn't sent by Apple
No it wasn’t. A separate one was, and we have a later story on that.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191213/09042443574/bogus-dmca-notices-still-huge-problem-as-apple-gets-unfairly-blamed-reddit-takedown.shtml
Backgrounder
The Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes case over DeCSS, which was appealed in the second circuit (thus creating precedent in that circuit, but only history for other circuits), but did not reach the Supreme Court.
Decrypting the DMCA: Fair Use as a Defense to the Distribution of DeCSS a law scholar paper on Fair Use vs DMCA 1201 cases. While it quotes a congressional comment to the effect that "the DMCA was not intended to prevent a DVD owner from using (eg) DeCSS on that DVD", but many laws have been written that did not do precisely what congress intended them to do.
The Future of Ideas an essay (or book?) by Laurence Lessig on copyright.
Re: Backgrounder
Sorry, one more comment on Reimerdes…
It was decided in 2000, and includes this gem:
"As a preliminary matter, it is far from clear that DeCSS is speech protected by the First Amendment. In material respects, it is merely a set of instructions that controls computers." And later: " the expressive aspect appears to be minimal when compared to its functional component."
While the ruling went on to assume in favor of 1st amendment protection, they then went on into "fire in a crowded theater" arguments: "In determining the constitutionality of governmental restriction on speech, courts traditionally have balanced the public interest in the restriction against the public interest in the kind of speech at issue."
The Fair Use and first amendment arguments might well be due for another airing. However, you’ll want to do it in some circuit other than the second, unless you plan on rolling the dice hoping that the Supreme Court will pick up the issue without having a circuit split to justify it.
Who sent what
Apple legal did send to Twitter.
But, rescinded, because they were woke up that DMCA does not apply to a number.
Apple legal did not send to reddit. It was fake.
I”ll just note that everything is a number.
Re: Who sent what
I’m on to you, bucko… I’ve got yer number
Is this key relevant to multiple or all Apple devices? Is it a security breach waiting to happen? If so, why not kindly request a removal until things are patched with changes, even if it is too late anyway. Offer the person posting it some bucks for figuring out how to derive it.
Phone numbers, eh?
Phone numbers, eh?
‘US courts have already decided that phone numbers are not subject to copyright (even made up numbers)’
867-5309
Re: Phone numbers, eh?
Some pizza joint in Toronto managed to trademark their telephone number, 967-1111.
For that matter, http://www.fcc.gov/document/833-toll-free-number-auction does seem to be attracting bids from companies who don’t want anyone else to have the 1-833 version of "their" vanity 1-800.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
information
thanks for this information about apple
<a href="https://www.my-wifiext.net/“> Mywifiext Local </a>
copyright eligidbe?
Is an encryption key even copyright-eligible? That seems highly unlikely
uh, APIs? I think it just depends on what some idiot judge decides.
Re: copyright eligidbe?
There’s always another jurisdiction to operate from when you decided you don’t like the judges.
If you avoid lockup anyway, I learned that recently.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
sablon plastik murah
The Fair Use and first amendment arguments might well be du https://sablontermurah.com/