It's only a number
I thought it was legal for me to post this number because I'm a New Zealander. Well, turns out that section 226 of the current Copyright Act (1993?) might ban it. It depends whether the number can, itself, be considered a means of circumvention of a 'technological protection measure', and then it also depends on whether that protection is for copying. If the measure is just for protecting access (which I think this one is), then it may or may not be illegal (but a similar section did apply when it was tested in UK courts).
I was under the impression that we didn't have any stupid laws regarding components used in devices with the intention of circumventing copyright. Of course, there's that bill before Parliament to fix the whole ambiguity, and make it overwhelmingly clear that this number is illegal (with up to a $150,000 penalty, or three years in jail). So, shit.
The line between personal use and commercial use also gets very blurry, very quickly. If personal use can be argued to have commercial implications [or] if one merely communicates information about the structure of encryption codes to others, who then use that for commercial or criminal purposes [then] the chain of liability seems very unclear. Presumably, one cannot be held criminally liable for the end uses of digital information by others.This insightful speech is the only reason I'm seriously considering voting Green next election. See the tally at the bottom? 113 ayes. The only party to vote against it was the Greens. They're pretentious and scary but, holy crap, at least Nandor (to his credit) knows a stupid idea when he sees one.