This is akin to someone arguing that laws against assault are making "Illegal Force Vectors", and laws against threatening speech are making "Illegal air molecule vibrations".
I think we should probably move away from pure possession of information being illegal, in substantial part because it's comparatively easy to plant. But regardless it doesn't have much to do with "illegal numbers".
Until he matures and realizes the "illegal number argument" is structurally the same as the "I didn't murder her, I was just moving through the room with my knife extended" argument.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
The point here is that saying "it's ok, it's data" isn't itself a good argument because it relies on reductionism or consideration of the effects of sharing the information. You could say you don't care about the effects, but it is invalid to deny their existence.
For the record, I'm anti-copyright and anti-patents.
And maybe learn what "to equivocate" means.