Tanner Swett wrote: > I intend, with 2 support, to file a Motion to Reconsider for CFJs 3040 > and 3041. Arguments: in my mind, brute-forcing a SHA-512 hash of any > size is an unreasonable effort to undertake in order to understand a > message. The responsibility for making a message easy to understand > falls chiefly on the writer, not the reader. While the writer could > have trivially made the message easier to understand, the reader would > have to know what a SHA-512 hash is and how to calculate one, and > either have enough cleverness to guess the correct string in a few > tries, or know how to write or find a computer program that > brute-forces the hash. It is unreasonable for the author of a message > to avoid an insignificant burden by expecting readers to bear a > significant one.
Counterargument: Googling "SHA 512" turns up http://hash.online-convert.com/sha512-generator within the first page of hits. Furthermore, not only was Pavitra's action relatively easy to guess, but eir exact text was relatively easy to guess due to its straightforwardness and brevity (contrast the hypothetical situation where e hashed e.g. "so hey I wanna become one o' them player thingies").
