No, they are just large files filled with random data that I used when testing out various programs from my copy of Numerical Recipes in C.
You suspect otherwise? Okay, prove it!
The problem with "banning" encryption is that it doesn't stop criminals/terrorists, and it's those people that we don't want having encryption, isn't it? And when something is encrypted with any half-decent encryption, it is forensically indistinguishable from anything stored with any other half-decent encryption. So you can't ban certain algorithms, you can't ban certain keylengths (the whole PGP thing proved how pointless this is), and you can't ban the actual software that does this sort of thing in general anyway (published in books, long-held mathematical theory, open-source code, etc.),
Much better to stop wasting time trying to ban it, and find better ways to monitor suspects and correlate them. Let's be honest, anyone worth their salt and therefore worthy of serious interest is going to be pretty much religious about not using unencrypted or weakly-encrypted channels anyway, no matter the technology involved. Banning encryption just catches the idiots, not stops what it claimed to be the source of the problem - being left in court with files you can't open which you think might hold evidence against clever criminals. who will quite happily go to jail for a year rather than open up those incriminating files for you.
At least they're not suggesting backdoors in encryption either, I suppose.