[Mithrandir]

Here's the letter: http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/11/16/magazine/16Lede2/m...

[Curmudgel]

If you read that document carefully, you can see that the EFF edited one of passages that they quoted and did not mention their edit, which is a big no-no. The original letter says:

  (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason,
  it has definite practical significant.

which the EFF quoted as

  (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason,
  it has definite practical significance).

[dllthomas]

I expect that was accidental, but I agree it should be fixed (either corrected in brackets, or the original with a [sic]).