- cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

[liberationtech] Henry Farrell for Democracy Journal: The Tech Intellectuals
by Eugen Leitl 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from Yosem Companys <companys(a)stanford.edu> ----- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:52:06 -0700 From: Yosem Companys <companys(a)stanford.edu> To: Liberation Technologies <liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu> Subject: [liberationtech] Henry Farrell for Democracy Journal: The Tech Intellectuals Reply-To: liberationtech <liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu> http://www.democracyjournal.org/30/the-tech-intellectuals.php?page=all The Tech Intellectuals The good, bad, and ugly among our new breed of cyber-critics, and the economic imperatives that drive them. Henry Farrell A quarter of a century ago, Russell Jacoby lamented the demise of the public intellectual. The cause of death was an improvement in material conditions. Public intellectuals—Dwight Macdonald, I.F. Stone, and their like—once had little choice but to be independent. They had difficulty getting permanent well-paying jobs. However, as universities began to expand, they offered new opportunities to erstwhile unemployables. The academy demanded a high price. Intellectuals had to turn away from the public and toward the practiced obscurities of academic research and prose. In Jacoby’s description, these intellectuals “no longer need[ed] or want[ed] a larger public…. Campuses [were] their homes; colleagues their audience; monographs and specialized journals their media.” Over the last decade, conditions have changed again. New possibilities are opening up for public intellectuals. Internet-fueled media such as blogs have made it much easier for aspiring intellectuals to publish their opinions. They have fostered the creation of new intellectual outlets (Jacobin, The New Inquiry, The Los Angeles Review of Books), and helped revitalize some old ones too (The Baffler, Dissent). Finally, and not least, they have provided the meat for a new set of arguments about how communications technology is reshaping society. These debates have created opportunities for an emergent breed of professional argument-crafters: technology intellectuals. Like their predecessors of the 1950s and ’60s, they often make a living without having to work for a university. Indeed, the professoriate is being left behind. Traditional academic disciplines (except for law, which has a magpie-like fascination with new and shiny things) have had a hard time keeping up. New technologies, to traditionalists, are suspect: They are difficult to pin down within traditional academic boundaries, and they look a little too fashionable to senior academics, who are often nervous that their fields might somehow become publicly relevant. Many of these new public intellectuals are more or less self-made. Others are scholars (often with uncomfortable relationships with the academy, such as Clay Shirky, an unorthodox professor who is skeptical that the traditional university model can survive). Others still are entrepreneurs, like technology and media writer and podcaster Jeff Jarvis, working the angles between public argument and emerging business models. These various new-model public intellectuals jostle together in a very different world from the old. They aren’t trying to get review-essays published in Dissent or Commentary. Instead, they want to give TED talks that go viral. They argue with one another on a circuit of business conferences, academic meetings, ideas festivals, and public entertainment. They write books, some excellent, others incoherent. In some ways, the technology intellectuals are more genuinely public than their predecessors. The little magazines were just that, little. They were written for an elite and well-educated readership that could be measured in the tens of thousands. By contrast, TED talks are viewed 7.5 million times every month by a global audience of people who are mostly well-educated but are not self-conscious members of a cultural elite in the way that the modal reader of Partisan Review might have been. In other ways, they are less public. They are more ideologically constrained than either their predecessors or the general population. There are few radical left-wingers, and fewer conservatives. Very many of them sit somewhere on the spectrum between hard libertarianism and moderate liberalism. These new intellectuals disagree on issues such as privacy and security, but agree on more, including basic values of toleration and willingness to let people live their lives as they will. At their best, they offer an open and friendly pragmatism; at their worst, a vision of the future that glosses over real politics, and dissolves the spikiness, argumentativeness, and contrariness of actual human beings into a flavorless celebration of superficial diversity. This world of conversation and debate doesn’t float unsupported in the air. It has an underlying political economy, which is intuitively understood by many of its participants. As Jacoby emphasizes, all debates about ideas are shaped by their material conditions. The intellectual possibilities of the purported golden age of the 1950s were in part the product of bad pay, cheap rent, and a small but intensely engaged audience of readers. Those of the 1960s and ’70s were influenced by a burgeoning university system, which rewarded intellectuals for writing impenetrably for an audience of their peers. The possibilities today reflect a different set of material conditions again, which don’t determine individual choices so much as they pull on them, gently but insistently. They influence what is discussed and what isn’t, who wins and who loses. And much goes undiscussed. The working consensus among technology intellectuals depicts a world of possibilities that seems starkly at odds with the American reality of skyrocketing political and economic inequality. It glosses over the deep conflicts and divisions that exist in society and are plausibly growing worse. And the critics of this consensus fare no better. They work within the same system as their targets, in ways that compromise their rejoinders, and stunt the development of more useful lines of argument. [snip] -- Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys(a)stanford.edu. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Getting max bandwidth out of a relay
by Eugen Leitl 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from Andy Isaacson <adi(a)hexapodia.org> ----- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 02:06:13 -0700 From: Andy Isaacson <adi(a)hexapodia.org> To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Getting max bandwidth out of a relay User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Reply-To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 05:13:04PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Are boxes that are doing these speeds running at a CPU or a network cap? > Or maybe better asked, they do run at 100% usage of their cores or do > they just use two/three cores to the max? There are three main sinks of CPU usage in a well-configured large Tor relay: 1. doing AES and SHA. This scales with the network bandwidth used. 2. doing Montgomery multiplication for circuit creation requests. 3. bookkeeping. (4. kernel TCP overhead etc.) Until the August botnet hit, #1 was the primary user of CPU on most relays. A single Xeon core can do about 150 MB/sec of AES, or with AES-NI around 700 MB/sec. With the vastly increased circuit creation load currently in progress, #2 and #3 have become a larger problem. The bookkeeping, in particular, has grown significantly. On noisetor right now, 17% of all CPU cycles are being spent in a single bookkeeping routine, circuit_unlink_all_from_channel, according to "perf top". https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/9683 This increased circuit-create-and-destroy CPU load reduces the CPU available to do useful AES, so as a result, currently many Tor relays are showing increased CPU usage with decreased bandwidth usage. You'll have trouble getting a single Xeon core to run much more than 300 Mbps even with AES-NI, even without the botnet increasing CPU load without increasing throughput usage. In the current state, with so much extra bignum work and bookkeeping, a single daemon will have even more trouble pushing much bandwidth. Best practice for maximum bandwidth is to run one Tor daemon per physical core, each on a distinct IP address. Plan for each daemon to push about 15 MByte/sec. They can do more like 20 or 30, but planning for lower leaves some headroom. Your boxes, with 12 cores and 70 GB of RAM, are quite a bit overpowered for running 500 Mbps of Tor. If you ran a Tor daemon per core, you'd be able to push around 2 Gbps of Tor traffic, easily. -andy _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

Re: [Cryptography] Laws and cryptography
by Eugen Leitl 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> ----- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:20:13 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> To: Grégory Alvarez <gregory(a)alvarez-garcia.com> Cc: cryptography(a)metzdowd.com Subject: Re: [Cryptography] Laws and cryptography > ... the Wassenaar Arrangement clearly says that > material, software and technology need an authorization to be exported / > published. > > What is actually the status of the law about cryptography and publishing > new algorithms ? Is the cryptographer that publish a paper without > governmental authorization an outlaw There is a tension between fundamental freedoms and crypto controls. Often fundamental freedoms win (as they should). The Wassenaar Arrangement is a private agreement among a bunch of governments -- it is not a treaty -- and has no legal force at all. What matters are the statutes in your own country, and how they are interpreted. I don't know of any cryptographers who have been punished under crypto export controls, anywhere in the world, for publishing papers about encryption. So invent your own cryptosystem if you want, write about it, and publish! Human-written software was considered to be different from human-written papers for a while; in the US it took three court cases (Bernstein v. US being the first winner) to sort this out. In the 1990s, Europe did not control freely published ("mass-market and public-domain") software, and by 2000 that was true in the US also. Unless you want to find and pay a lawyer with relevant expertise, the best way to get a more-or-less definitive answer for your particular country is to look in Bert-Jaap Koops' "Crypto Law Survey". He has been maintaining it for decades, and actually did his PhD thesis on global regulations about encryption. See: http://cryptolaw.org/ > The department of the ministry of defense that handle this regulation > can't answer if publishing a cryptographic algorithm needs an > authorization. Can't answer, or won't? In the United States, both the NSA and the agencies responsible for the export controls (State Department and Commerce Department) have been known to lie to the public, unofficially, about what is actually allowed. Their tendency is to talk you into assuming that you have no rights, even if the law is clear that you do. Or they will tie you up in knots over how you might be able to comply with finicky regulations, without ever telling you that you are exempt from those regulations. We even caught them lying officially once or twice (e.g. refusing export of Kerberos authentication software on the bogus theory that someone, someday, might adapt it to do encryption). John _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

[1] addenda- artwork examples
by brian carroll 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

typo collage by Laslo Moholy-Nagy, 1922 http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebadboy/4305933173/lightbox/ http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/42-22071693/early-wo… jasper johns alphanumerics http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UgXFTByzbvE/TdPUi819VRI/AAAAAAAAAZE/4SR-NseLDQk/s… http://www.slowmuse.com/2012/06/11/honing-in-on-johns-smee-style/ http://www.sfgate.com/art/article/Jasper-Johns-review-SFMOMA-s-broad-stroke… http://www.lost-painters.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Jasper-Johns-Gray-Nu… http://www.google.com/imgres?start=131&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=Icg&rls… http://www.google.com/imgres?start=133&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=NI1&rls… http://www.google.com/imgres?start=159&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=NI1&rls… http://www.pinterest.com/macotok/jasper-johns/ http://www.pinterest.com/digbydo/johns-jasper/ #note on quantum correlation-- discovered in first image search query for Jasper Johns examples... transparent ziplock with acid written on it, yellow letters inside, by Ray Geary (?) http://vapidforever.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Acid-241x300.jpg https://www.google.com/search?q=jasper+johns+alphabet&safe=off&client=firef…

1 0

[1] crypto-p.wd
by brian carroll 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

// disclaimer: half of what i say here is false (right), though may yield some ideas... // there appears to be huge intangibility involved in cryptography, belonging both to highly advanced mathematics and its mediation in designs of advanced technology, as if betting at the limits of what can be known - in extreme territories and with potentially massively powerful tools where the ideas, hypotheses are tested. and yet failure may not be readily known, even by the cryptologists- if peer-review and mathematical and security advances are compartmentalized (deep state capacity versus everyday society) or oppositional capabilities, perhaps some 'unknowns' have been solved for some time and are the basis for breaking existing codes and creating others. again, a naive person like myself may think this is what p=np and calculating largest prime numbers are about, those those only a small sample of a different security-driven secret landscape of ideas, techniques, and technologies that may be nowhere near public or even private discourse in day to day civilization; again, this assumption based on an otherness or differing capacity for crypto beyond existing technology and public encryption standards. strong on mathematics, strong on technology- yet what about strong on ideas as the basis for the code? what about the secret communication dimension, not just Bell Theorem signal and noise, also Saussure and others with basic models of communication - have these assumptions become dogmatic and assumed solid when instead they are ready and ripe for exploits based on misconceived notions, like a social viewpoint that is accepted and unquestioned yet inaccurate or even to a degree untrue, then allowing a false viewpoint or perspective to become standard, able to be exploited from the start due to not fixing the errors, and so on... those being errors in thinking, in conceptualization, in assumptions of 'what code is' and where it begins and ends, and the issue of its conceptualization and especially ~understanding or meaning. utility is a much hated word though in an infrastructural sense perhaps relevant, and likewise: purpose. this is where i contend that "code" that is assumed 'true' by its very nature of transmission is insecure by the assumption that this viewpoint is actually shared in a model of trust that grounds to truth removed of errors, versus partial truth or even a fiction that establishes an illusion, behind the security mask of encrypted communications. and is that level of auditing going on with the messaging, what is transmitted- and where does the code actually end-- is the model of encryption -simplistically- only an issue of creating a container to send data within, thus in some sense providing security and cover for hidden conversations, and thus like a brown paper bag that goes from point A to point B and blocks any attempts at intercepting the contents (say anti-magnetic, un-x-rayable, etc), and is it a binary data model that scrambles the contents within this container to an indecipherable format, related to particular cryptographic equations, and via key exchange or other means, can be decrypted and the message taken out of the brown bag when confirmed to safely arrive at point B. and should someone gain access to the bag, they may only be able to investigate its outside, and if advanced enough perhaps the bag would degrade or disintegrate over time or by any attempts to access what is on the inside of the temporary security container. a horribly uninformed guess of the dynamics perhaps, though issues of mass or targeted surveillance of encrypted data (say by NSA or the local police force, in a terror-allowed extra-judicial surveying getting around the bureaucratic blind-eye syndrome, not everything dealt within the courts these days if ever it was) - then perhaps the brown bag is actually instead, via the capacity for decryption and key-escrow scenarios- a transparent ziplock pouch containing the message that is meant to be secret and thus the data is accessible both at its origin, along its route of transfer, at its destination, and in any storage capacity, potentially. And perhaps that information could even be stored off-site in some database- perhaps the ideal model for the security state, just like the fantasy of electronic health records-- who could feasibly do a better job of this than a ubiquitous surveillance state- what would the ur database of secrecy be, would it be a data warehouse in some desert or underground mine somewhere, with all the hidden information of peoples private lives, chock full of lies, betrayals, indictable offenses, then to be queried should *any* citizen step out of line, in any political context- to call upon electronic blackmail or other data to shape, sculpt the future state via such exploitative information operations? is that not the fear at least, about unrestricted data gathering and loss of trust for where the boundaries are, the law no longer seemingly protecting citizens or held as a hypocritical Damocles sword above each individual, should they question the state, bureaucracy, its authority and various representatives, public though especially privately connected, advantaged, as if now you are on the wrong side- no chair for you when the music stops. it just seems like so much is riding on the infallibility of a model that has obvious weaknesses, in particular the serialization and digital mantra of long numbers and calculation in a particular ~style of computation, as if somehow the peak of intellect, while seriously flawed both in its thinking (rendering a too simple worldview as binary ideology) and its technical limitations (leading to abysmal computing for human beings, though great for dumb and powerful machines). Try to eek artificial intelligence out of a concept that is not grounded firstly in truth, inaccurate models detaching quickly from human values- humans serving the machines, trading life for the toxic necropolis though also a structural idiocy built upon the falsehood, unstable, which is why the ideology must be 'absolute' and basically monopolize options- the barrier of the binary is keeping people away from understanding and being able to shape technology, its obfuscation and abstraction far away from 'thinking code' that was once the goal, so everyone could program a computer and instead, only a professional class can do it, and it is so horrendous in terms of implementation at scale that devices are basically hobbled together in a mish-mash of oftentimes conflicting code, if not having such design issues as the basis for exploitation, for weakening software to disallow any brown bag or secure website to possibly exist, though held within a context that ideologically presumes and declares the brown bag scenario is the default situation, versus the transparent ziplock bag, whether cellphone data kept from the manufacturer who monitors it for statistics and advertising, to others, including government, or home computers that are like ant farms these days in terms of potential exploits, like a plague environment where quarantine is likely not even possible anymore, especially with TEMPEST or keyloggers or NFC or whatnot. cancer is not only devastating the populations, there is a cancer of ideological code, a virus-like contagion that has overtaken technology and is best, most iconomically represented by the binary digits of 'digital ideology' as if progress in some backwards mind-washed and societally-engineered global cesspool. 100101101001000001101010100110010101000101011100 What is that stream of data exiting or entering my computer? -thinks the naive person to themselves- is it my bank records being pinged remotely by the local magistrate to use against me in an extortion scheme or to frame me and cause my downfall? At some level, this is the universal currency of computation today for those who can use and "program" the devices to do things, though of course it is reliant on computer architecture, processor design, transistors themselves and if 2-values are the approach, that establishes a structure that influences everything within its functional domain, as a kind of superset operation 2(everything). Thus, an issue like "literacy" in a very limited context may be if you have foundational knowledge and can understand and comprehend the situation involved, (in contrast to omniscience as a basis for literacy.) Those who have this 'binary computation' literacy then are able to program computers to do things via software and hardware designs, and particular systems: e.g. a security model that becomes crypto technology, via customized hardware and software development. And that likely is based on certain assumptions about how things work, yet within a particular (binary) framework as the overall, largest, or overriding assumption. A situation like qbits or spintronics potentially upsets the model or analog computation (if not 3-value or N-value) best suited for artificial intelligence in that 'grey area' is vital -- retaining "unknowns" or "neutral" states -- as part of the consideration of IDEAS within a computational and analytic context, versus forcing an answer, most especially if this is premature or even inelegant and in its lowlier determinism, degrades the question in achieving its answer, dumbing things down. For people to succeed in society they have to become binary machines, think like on/off switches, a quick way to success if taking on machine values and reinforcing them, and in this way the binarist has found their religion in a false absolutist framework that has also killed though within the educational system, universities in particular, where ungrounded viewpoints of subjective relativism (a=b) enable an authority to determine truth, thus trump any errant thinking, and allow the machine to proceed on its political path, via its own antihuman values, much of this supported by tax dollars, loans, and lifetimes of tithing-- to gain what exactly- "the correct viewpoint of a person who can function in the machine, as the machine, become the machine, extend its principality". For those not literate enough to program and much less to design crypto systems in that context, the binary code itself is the encryption- the opaque wall that is impenetrable, a mystery behind which all truth in society is either captured or missing, held outside of, and thus delegitimated by its absence (~nothingness). In this way, the existential no-exist crisis, everything reliant on a computational system and approach that has disenfranchised humanity, yet people are told and sold on the faith in corrupted technology (and corrupt ideas) that the whole mess actually works and there is a hidden purity in it all, behind the code you cannot understand nor fathom. That it is actually beautiful and not horrendous and a terror, "you just do not and cannot understand", unless indoctrinated, made literate. And most everything keeps that from happening for certain people on the outs with those running the exploitative power game, which is also part of the 'idea'. In that limiting access, segmenting populations of those who can and those who cannot, then is active political science as computer science and its development. This leading to the online webwork and network culture of today which is more a global junk drawer than anything else, civilization turned into foolish wasteland, the trinket icons for social media most like those thingamajigs put in the safe zone of a baby crib for the enforced society of mass adolescence, by DESIGN. So for one of these fools, myself, for me the binary code is a form of encryption (or perhaps encoding with an incapacity to decode) that carries with the mystery of perfectly hidden communication, that only few, masters of this realm, can deal with to the degree of breaking actual cryptography that is further embedded in this modeling of data in what seemingly amounts to electric charge and magnetism as this is moved around and stored within circuits, on an individual local level and as it relates to vast global networks and congregations of such data in what are likely only "pseudo-empirical" models, not dealing with _absolute truth and instead reliant upon a shorter quicker route that estimates what truth is using the same binary ideology, which tends towards reliance on ~subjective mathematics; subjective in the sense of A=B whereas objective would be A=A, relations involving like and unlike. Plato enabled the questioning of paradox, accounting for it, whereas Aristotle apparently deny its existence- and this more like Aristotle's world. Both could be correct if delving into it, modeling it, figuring out how the relativism fits into a shared model of truth- it could be an issue such as allowing for time that favors one view over another, for instance. And yet if assuming 'everything was known and figured out' and thus "absolute truth" could be determined, after all the facts are in, then an A=A approach may be valid as an unrealized hypothetical, a model of truth that is highly accurate towards truth (95% +unknowns/errors) that is then essentially "truth" yet remains contingent, based on falsification or new data that tests and challenges the model, further solidifying or tweaking or undermining it. This is the assumption of the binary 1, absolute truth, and in contrast 0 as falsity. As if a daily encounter people can categorize their experiences within. That is, as an idea, as an ideology-- yet throughouly in the bed of relativism, without grounding in a larger error-correcting empirical truth, and instead reliant on the local individual skews and warping and distortion of uncorrected observations, shared and unshared, as a basis for 'infallible' assumptions and presumption of truth as an easily accessible, decidable condition- a choice as it were. A right even, for an individual to determine what will be their specific reality on a given day. Flip-flop circuitry, today it is true tomorrow false and in two weeks truth again. No sliding scale of the N-value analog of looping probability (.1 then .8) nor 3-value grey days in the neutral or unknown middle zone (1-N-0) -- instead, like 'the only correct answers on standardized exams" in the indoctrination system to brain wash humans into machine ideology for pre-programmed, exploitable functioning, there is always a right answer available, and someone has it and will move ahead and those who question or think differently are challenging the machine, breaking the ideological coherence, and must be removed as if defective transistors, part of the corporate state business model of mass manufacturing human components into a living global computer based on machine values. And what is proposed is that an assumption exists in cryptographic models that involves this issue where, most basically, the assumption that A=A is itself not accurate in the least, including at the computational or hardware level, its architecture, as this then evolves into software, which "ideas" then both are born of and born within what likely are 'inaccuracies' of thought, of consideration about IDEAS themselves that are the basis for the code and the secret communication. A lot of assumptions could be wrong, including at the level of messaging which crypto may assume is A=A by default, of shared grounded interpretation when instead it is most likely A=B by default, a question, a very grey-area of consideration -- how do you even know what the encrypted code is, where the crypto begins and ends-- and it seems to be that 'the crypto algorithm' is this device that delineates : here is the crypto. And for the uninitiated and illiterate (in this realm) it becomes a situation not only of seeing the binary code as a wall of mystery and actual oppression, a limit or boundary or threshold behind or beyond which is an inaccessible realm that has the capacity lost in another realm, the potential for action, for ideas, held in the hands and minds of others, then to be faced with a stream of numbers and repeatedly told of their security and really- infallibility- as a security model, because of the length of the string or the size of the prime numbers being computed. As if entirely about numbers, truth and ideas, and not about logic and truth firstly or in relation to these, foundationally. And so from the outside it seems some of those who actually believe such things must either be very naive "thinkers" and have no real philosophical sensibility -- that is, in the realm of ideas or models of actual human communication -- or they are lying and bullshitting and are fully aware of the exploitation. Perhaps there is a hidden social aspect for humans involved, implicit understanding and awareness of these limitations, though for others it seems like the classic crooked salesman situation, crowds gathered round for the miracle cure which is a ripoff. Intelligence wise this is a sure thing, the deception- though the scale has gone from a public context into a no rules private context where seemingly anything goes within a given networked boundary- which perhaps is the setup, allowing the petri dish to populate its ecosystem, observe and categorize the dynamics, and so on. And thus, implicit in this suspension of disbelief, the grey area appears in the paradoxical nature of the situation- there is and is not security, it is contingent on varying factors and can ebb and flow day to day. And yet at some juncture this is already well into the application or implementation of crypto models and assumptions-- say people are walking around with encrypted access badges and it leads to biometric and other parallel security technologies to make a physical security situation as robust as it can be in terms of verifying identification. Yet even then the well known issue of intention, the person moving from one point to another could have ulterior motives and that access granted them is actually an issue of insecurity due to duplicity, or who knows, with counter intelligence it could be triplicity and fake messaging or whatnot that is moved as information. And so that depth and issues of trust. And then in an online, remote connection scenario, software is mediated the locked doors and verification, yet the same issue remains of trust between sender and receiver or the relation of those communicating via secure exchange. And here is the question again- how can it be verified that Alice is not Edward and Bob is not Nancy or is that irrelevant and a 'social issue' of security and not involved in the cryptographic model. For instance, assume there is an Edward and Bob who are exchanging a message and it is in a biased pronoun perspective (subjective) of "history" that warps and skews human existence to only oneside of the ledger at some interpretative level, where inaccuracies or falsities could persist in the data itself. Edward ----> ("history") ----> Bob If Bob receives the encrypted information and "decrypts" it, presumably Bob would then have "history" on his side and the exchange would be successful, the crypto would have worked, and it could be assumed the data is TRUE by default of its transmission; the code is some fancy algorithm (brown bag) that moves the intended information from one point to another in a protected, secure way. (history) Edward <===> Bob (history) Yet what if Bob is actually Nancy in drag... what if the identity of sender and receiver are unshared in some relativistic aspect that remains unaccounted for in the general model of trust- easily equated with a sender or receiver who is lying or an impersonator, etc. Or, an ungrounded observation assumed universal and the basis for shared empiricism... (history) Edward <===> Nancy (history) The reasoning or thinking person may evaluate inaccuracies or flaws within the 'message' or 'ideas' and discern or deliberate from that context, which could still involve 'encrypted data' as it relates to actual truth in the model of shared exchange. For Nancy or a human being, "herstory" may balance the biasing of the male perspective where relevant as a shared framework, and thus there could be 'both truth and falsity' in the message, or shared and unshared POVs. This is proposed a potential weakness in terms of security, because the 'secret writing' does not end with the data transmission... (T) Edward <===> Nancy (T/F) --------> his|her-story Now perhaps there is implicit understanding between Edward and Nancy about these dynamics, so a kind of autocorrect could occur via observation, such that a human view could emerge from both a male and female accounting of the story- yet it also may not and lead to diverging interpretations, one biased only to male evaluation in an extreme version, and thus the female structurally subordinate yet functioning within that realm by ideological compliance. Institutional politics seems to occupy this realm by default, attempting to engineer a solution while not dealing with the corrupt code involved, or false ideas allowed to persist. So assume this split in interpretation is not to do with sex or gender issues and instead it is just about an unshared idea, where a model could exist that the data exchanged in a secure way is actually A=A when instead it is A=B, and what that dynamic establishes in terms of corrupting assumptions of trust. In a scenario of ungrounded relativistic observation, there could be 'N' such security problems for any variance in the ideas themselves. Hidden readings belonging to other levels of secret writing and hidden communication-- and this is all about meaning and language itself as the primordial code of ideas, not mathematical concepts as the meaning, value, and worth of the exchange, presumably. Thus the double-agent problem could be: (T/F) <===> (T/F) And depending on how those doubles interact, it could be sharing like or unlike lies or sharing truth or unshared truth. And that is before any ambiguity or grey area would be modeled where a question may exist, unknowns, in what is being communicated- which is usually the norm for exchange of information in that people are not omniscient and not capable of thinking through every last detail of a communication due to boundedness, though computers may have more potential ability for this-- in plain text. Like newspapers headlines related to other headlines in a categorical model. (T/N/F) <===> (T/N/F) In the above example, the middle or 3rd value could either function as 'unknown' and thus not involve determination of what the meaning is of the message or *some aspect of it* which could remain unintelligible or ~vague, in some way or dimension, else it could involve an N-value approach that slides across from truth to falsity depending on probability of understanding, whereby 'truth' and 'falsity' are never actually attained (impossible, I say, this absolute knowing) in the basic data model, and there is always already an implicit realm of error and misunderstanding and non-awareness inherent in the "secure exchange" via these shared relations that is part of the condition of serial language based on non-empirically grounded signs today. In other words: most all language and communication exists in this gray area (N) from the start, even within computers, and the binary framework (1,0) and truth and falsity in an absolute framework are a fiction; and in this way-- a security problem in each and every exchange in terms of the actual accounting for the truth in the secure exchange, its validity and its role in establishing shared observation when this is more unlikely than likely, if there are unstable shifting conditions for observation (observers moving goalposts, etc). So in a security model of relational exchange it would appear required to account for ambiguity from the start, such that any exchange exists in an insecure condition *as language* which itself can be further encrypted or encoded and depending on the observers may or may not be shared as a viewpoint. This is the realm of linguists as thinkers of ideas, the potential for language as code, that extreme threshold of intelligibility that can *appear* and actually *be* that garbled mess of signs and symbols and numbers and yet remain intelligible as language, as hidden or secret communication. Observer.1 (N) <===> Observer.2 (N) This is to attempt to convey the idea that while 'binary code' and encryption could transmit an idea between observers, that there is still the issue of viewpoint, understanding and analysis- the meaning of the data in the exchange, as this relates to secure communication. Perhaps it only applies in a textual exchange format, yet the encryption itself may go further than PGP or SSL and the issue of data integrity seemingly may not even relate to the issue of 'truth' of the data itself, which in some instances may be required though in others, it would seem to imply either a shared empiricism must exist that error-corrects false views and thus enables 'truth' to co-exist via remote connections, and perhaps involve shared dictionaries or keys-- which tends towards truth-- or that it could be wrongly assumed that this is a shared condition else asymmetrical, and those dynamics could be involved. The reason it may be relevant, especially in an untrusted context, is that the 'officially' decrypted code may not be the actual hidden message, it may be the self-evident signage of successfully contained and delivered 'security content' yet its meaning may remain ambiguous until further analyzed, which could be done successfully or not, and may or may not be time dependent upon having the window or keys to decipher its hidden meaning, thus long term storage may not be an issue if it quickly degrades, the originating context evaporates with which to contextualize it, make sense of it, etc. In other words, the 'official communication' could be a false perspective and the double or *surveiller* may access the decrypted headline and interpret at that level of binary correlation and categorization in its rough global-model, yet the actual intelligence may not be surface level, it may still be encrypted within that content-- and here is the idea: like the fiction of the binary string being some intellectual stronghold that transports the valued information, it is instead that that decrypted string or gibberish data when made into plain text is not verifiably the "decrypted code" which could still exist in plain language without a computer algorithm determining its structure (instead it is ~ideas themselves, their truth) and that this could even involve raw crypto code itself (guessing hash data) that could carry within it decipherable yet hidden meaning. e.g. A SENTENCE COULD HAVE ANOTHER HIDDEN MEANING WITHIN IT. The signage (letters, words, punctuation) does not readily move to a A=A scenario in certain chaotic environments where meaning is unshared. It could be variable, unstable, collapse if falsified or the hypothesis is known inaccurate or false- thus A=B that it tends towards the grey-area or even falsity. The sign itself, say a [word], could be ambiguous, it may not translate across cultural differences as a concept or may exist in various zoned definitions, say word processing software or written word or spoken word, or may be a typo (world). They are potentials, possibilities, and if not having the key, it may be missed or details that cannot be comprehended given an unshared understanding or inaccuracies in viewpoint or reasoning process. Say, if forcing things to a biased perspective and thus there is data loss in attempting to access the meaning, because it does not readily fit into the same conceptual framework. Issues of language. Yet further there is an entire realm of language missing from this that is moreso that of code and encrypted communication: symbolism. If for instance a PGP encrypted communication was shared between observers 1 and 2 and so it streamed through computer processors and across networks as digital bits and a string of abstracted encrypted information that arrives at its destination; and for all that trouble the "officially" decrypted message is a word that can be written in different directions, and thus is either the same or has different meaning; say [ton] and [not] else, [wow] and [wow] or [mom], else the ever classic anagram [santa] and [satan]. This kind of 'word permutations' are similar to calculus in that they transform the situation from one scenario into another, and this is mentioned in Plato in regards to mirroring and language, that that is when the meaning of language is unlocked and understanding begins. This is the most basic first step into this realm, though the idea is that signs have mutability, yet there can also be a symbolic aspect that is inherent in all language (categorization, archetypes, say a tree in relation to other trees as it models the 'concept' of what a tree is); and so images and objects can function as language and be used in communication, such as a barber pole or sign for bread outside a bakery via the image of bread. Symbol dictionaries are the place to look for this type of rich cultural information which dates back to the beginning of civilization and involves the esoteric and mystical realm, in addition to that of theology and philosophy, essentially metaphysics which can veer straight into the occult or the core of the world's religious institutions. so entire languages or systems of communication are already establishes for millennia and tied into present-day language and sign and symbol systems that potentially could be referenced in a 'decrypted communication' that remains encrypted in this context; and it directly parallels the [infinity] x [infinity] x [infinity] ... {N} approach, because each letter or word or idea could potentially map into another unknown context, unless having the capacity to decipher this non-linear, multi-linear ecology of ideas in their various empirical frameworks-- if accessible to the observer. It is not a serial string that suddenly is decrypted and becomes A=A by the magic of cryptography and instead becomes a question of assuming 'the answer' is the most immediate signage encounter upon 'official decryption' versus what may be an extended hidden communication that is the foundation and basis for human language and communication throughout its development of culture, and that this is not a serial string of signs (say, greatest idea is largest prime number!) and instead about the interconnected logic of symbolism as it identifies truth, and those who shared this empiricism and understanding communicate within it, and those who do not may have the signage, and potentially the keys, yet may not be able to see it because of an unshared model of truth (theirs: pseudo-truth) that degrades the interpretation via the action of seeking to determine meaning. Imagine the decrypted official message, post-binary, post crazy code, is the plaintext word: rotor And somehow the hidden key indicates to twist this 180 degrees, such that: jo+oj In this arbitrary example, given pre-existing library of meaning or contextual interpretation (say, contingent meaning based on temporary shared keys) that this is referencing the song _these boots are made for walkin'. Such that perhaps the two letters j somehow reference this as pictographs and then there is additional content related to the potential signs/symbols of that fragment as a linked cryptogram. The plaintext rotor may be embedded in a larger decrypted document yet be distinguished by a secret shared key that opens up or unlocks its potential meaning; in that it may or may not be "accurate" or true, though if grounded as a shared viewpoint it could tend towards 1 or absolute truth in that finite micro-perspective that may identify or share some critical data. If considering that each word in this email could carry some potential for decryption of hidden information, not only is each letter and word a potential variable, their combination and connections both inside and outside this text are also relevant thus instead of a binary string of ones and zeroes and their abstraction as an indication of the intangibility of accessing the cryptic code, instead it is the empty set and that question that stand in for the self-evident (yet potentially wrong) signage saying: the decrypted code is here, read the serial message: this is a secret, shhhh.... Do you see the absurdity of assuming encryption occupies only an obfuscated realm when in a context of philosophy, truth, ideas, logic, and mathematics involved in those questions versus what are by comparison computational trivialities in terms of "intelligence" as it exists in the realm of ideas versus vacuum packed into a clean-room context of science, technology, and technocrats with a ruling agenda? It is really laughable, in that there is real idiocy involved in assuming an idea is simply true or decrypted as a sign of a language system and that there are clear boundaries between these security concepts. I doubt humans do this though apparently a great many in the population are ideological adherents and enforce this viewpoint, have taken over entire institutions, in particular the education system itself, government, health care, and are determining by this false perspective binary mindset the future of humanity, which is not only in decline, it is that of the earth turned into an open air concentration camp and yet given tools to communicate about it (ziplock bags) that would lead to their further persecution for being revealed an enemy of the rogue terror state via gilliam Brazil-like error-nightmares that can never be recovered from, bad components must die, only the ideologically pure will survive, who like in the Matrix now use humans as batteries to keep their machine running, "evolving". A related aspect involving Plato is that there are original ideas, fundamental concepts, and then there are "copies". And it seems very relevant to issues of code, programming, cryptography and security, including with hardware development (knock-off chips, secret instructions, etc). Issues of verification of A=A that can be lost via mutations or loss of oversight or control or unshared goals, ideas, as part of the process. So that seems to describe some of the politics involved, where an idea can start out in truth (A=A) yet move towards another viewpoint or further into pseudo-truth (pT) over time, such that A=>B (or, A=B). This is like a once-secure crypto approach that is subverted somehow, either known (A=B) and thus invalidated for its security or believed secure (pT=T) and thus in that error there is a loss in security; in that *subjectivity* as it were, that unaccounted for ambivalence or the impossibility of determining its truth via accounting. Yet what is even more readily evident in "popular crypto" appears to be the issue of 'copies of copies' which is the internet model of software distribution, whereby the issue of the first copy had a close relation to the original, such that A1=A2 may be nearly indistinguishable, whereas through the reiterative process of 'copying the copy', (such that A2 => A3...A300+) then also involves erosion of the original within the realm of the copies, whereby A2 is closer to B than A1, and A300 is no longer recognizably the same, cannot function as an imposter, and is a self-evident degradation of the original idea (A=B), "unlike". It does not pass, the camouflage of the mimicry broken; just repeating signs (code) without "understanding" then has entropic loss of intelligibility as a consequence. And thus at the level of signage, a key could be known and repeated, attempted to be used, yet if it is ungrounded, shallow, disconnected, the observer would stay on the outside of the conversation, surface interaction, versus entering into a shared realm of awareness. The hidden communication could be right in front of a person and they may never know it. That is, in terms of ideas. How to encrypt a phone call or video the same way probably relies on existing concepts tied into binary data transmission, though still even in those domains the same issues of subtext and accessibility apply. Grounding, ungrounded truth, verification. So this is to presume that cryptography has innate connection to conceptualization, modeling of the relations, exchange, in a context of security and shared data. And yet in some ways this language viewpoint inverts the signal/noise approach, in that the secret writing may instead occur in the noise and not within the signal as is presumed of 'decrypted message' via a software solution, at least formally, from a naive view. In that there could be many needle-in-haystack scenarios inherent in ordinary language transmission that effectively function as encrypted information or messaging as part of ordinary communication processes. And you could have your optic nerve tapped by neuroscientists who are reading your brainwaves and seeing what you see, seeing the keys and considerations, yet if the empirical model of truth is unshared or errors are relied upon, that split fractures and limits interpretation, making it potentially inaccessible in that it functions in a different paradigm of consideration, outside the framework of evaluation-- in the realm of ideas, not of ideological determinism to validate a too simple model that becomes a method of behavioral command and control. This conceptual code, beyond the sign, into the sign, between the signs, appears absent in the thinking and ideas of crypto as computation, though in terms of its calculus-like ~mathesis (mathematics of language, language of mathematics) based in logical reasoning, this infrasign, intra-sign and symbolic question go into the deep core of culture at its earliest and its most recent era where the same model of truth has been relied upon and extended, in the realm of ideas, and thus de|con-struction and other approaches -- hell, triple loop, salchow, flip and lutz in skating is itself language, or the arrangement of flowers, or the color and details of clothing ensembles-- and that these domains can be secretly written/read, parsed for hidden meaning in day to day interactions and this is also and perhaps more prominently the realm of crypto-communiations, if not preceding its technological development because the mathematics are different; what if every number of the largest prime was a bounded infinity and each related to the next in sequence, what computer can deal with that? none. The conceit is that today's crypto is that strong, whereas the "ideas" of this crypto is indeed that strong, just not the technology to communicate it. The ideas are the protection, as they are encoded or hidden in others, requiring thinking yet also competence, not mere mimicry, not just stand-ins or copies or clones seeking to exploit via subversion or controlling a domain- such as: the classic "x" marks the treasure, therefore everyone is at x, yet that is not the real x, it is actually x', and so on, because it is symbolic, goes beyond the sign=sign as truth when instead it is a question relying upon shared verification, validation, testing, rigor-- security. An example of the difference would be a coin toss, a binarist having modeled the issue to only allow heads or tails, when there is a slight probabilistic chance it could land on its edge under certain conditions, and thus paradoxically be 'both' heads and tails or indeterminate, and thus an issue also of time is involved. So even though the probability may be hypothetically 0.00001 that it lands on its edge, say the coin toss lands between thick blades of grass on the soccer field, and thus requires a follow-on toss, that instead this ambiguity can be removed from the binary model, made irrelevant, as with 'unknowns'. That is only amplified when dealing with a realm that more closely occupies this edge-condition day to day, issue to issue, then forcing it to goals on one side or the other (1,0) when instead it is likely in a gradient between them (N), either as 3-values (unknown) or the bounded scale, sampling a resolution up to infinity between them, for any given evaluation of truth, in an empirical framework. Relativism, the ideological beast, ignores this and goes binary to allow 'super large prime numbers' to exist as ideological viewpoints, irrespective and ignoring their falsifiability, that is the essential corruption of the rigged game that ends with killing off humanity. Whereas if you are in outer space, there is no horizon and you flip the coin, presumably it is going to keep spinning and spinning until friction eventually slows it down though perhaps outside influence will motivate it (ionic wind or hot-cold difference from sun) and perhaps that will keep it going and going and going... and yet even if it were to stop spinning someplace so remote as to have no place to 'land', no horizon to tell what side is UP, how without this frame of reference would the coin toss be determined in its sidedness. Seemingly it would involve being pulled toward the nearest gravitational source and if habitable and surviving reentry, say on a dead moon, it may finally land in some dusty realm, highly unlikely on its edge, though perhaps removed of its identifiable sides or not, yet at that point, it would be determined-- this is the result of that long ago flip of probability minus immediate gravity. The weightlessness of not knowing, of having questions, not enough variables to model an idea fully, and taking that time _before deciding what is true, is that realm of the neutral observer, and of a method of analysis requiring of hypothesis, not reliant upon the quick answers a false-theoretical framework provides, such that for universal or enigmatic situations the first choice would instead be absolute "truth" or "falsity" in the binary mindset, further constructing and building the false perspective of ungrounded relativism. A trillion quadrillion zillion coin tosses true and false-- that is what we can do! -- Yet what if most of those evaluations are inaccurate, hollow, even destructive for the ideas they are mediating, to the point that it subverts "truth" and replaces it with a fake realm of false choices and corrupt relations as the status quo. Perhaps more time need be given to let the coin spin for each and every question, instead of seeking to determine its outcome in a too simple model of reality. s8b 23x d0s The code snippet above could have as much or more "computational complexity" than the largest prime number, in terms of its cryptographic potential, if instead of evaluating a single message or correct answer that there could be a novel's worth of meaning. This is the 'universe in a grain of sand' approach, more like that of scrying where set theory universes could be nested within others, and these ecologically connected inside and linked outside the matrix, crypto patterns that are bounded N-variable relations that offer an interpretative open range of decipherment, yet like a random number generator, do not necessarily hold intention or intelligible structure by default of their 'random' creation. Enigma RNG, like a slot machine with symbols that tally, except these could instead be TLAs or gap substitutions or mutated or phased dynamics, or various movements etched, all of it libraried such that patterns could be revealed that are insightful and map to existing other frameworks-- in that like archetypes and tarot (applied symbolism) or especially crystal balls, something is revealed momentarily and this may not be connected to another via obvious key exchange- instead it could exist via SAD and quantum correlations, the entanglement of a shared resonant instance that pops out like a constellations or its key revealed this way, accessing a noosphere like collective consciousness where truth actually does determine reality and in this surrender to the weather-like dynamics of this ephemeral condition, its magic- what is grounded can be made accessible this way, revealed. A computer may be able to parse or frame small aspects, yet to decipher or read or make sense of it, more would need be involved, shared consciousness, to consider the questions that may arise that could weight certain variables over others in a given moment, and then transform the context and provide a path down another previously unseen interpretation as a result, only to have the wave function collapse and the idea disappear from view, safely stored in its state of mystery. That is, more of the realm of "information" as ideas existing outside the brain, in the atmosphere, accessible by others, and not just about brains in skulls and neurons blipping as if all language and knowledge can be flattened to a graph or visualized by modern-era phrenologists with dangerous beliefs. This is more than parallel worlds model of relation, entanglement inherent in shared ideas if the 'original' is pinged by distributed others, then how accurate the relation with the idea and with others as a basis for trust and security. In binary worldview everything occurs in the same set theory universe (U1) yet this is a false POV, whereas in a paradoxical logic approach, the shared universe (U) is born from their integration and structural interconnection of all relative universes (U1, U2, U3 ... U^N) that are grounded in truth, removed of error, and thus modeled and related to and through via shared perspective; archetypes, language, communication, shared identity, trust, value, exchange, information as current and currency, onward to hidden civilization, cosmic lineage, secret order. The crypto-bomb is that, as with set theory, there can be hierarchic nested relations within a conceptualization of code and secret communication such that issues of apparent and vaunted 'peak complexity' that declare cryptographic integrity today (transparent ziplock as if brown bag) are themselves quite simplistic and rudimentary in comparison to the mathematics involved in this other phenomenally and incomparably more intense "intellectual" evaluation -- involving ideas themselves in the security model -- in that, take for instance the Kryptos enigma ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptos) -- it is very impressive such a sculpture exists and a single message can be deciphered that is said to explain its various grid of letters. So its hidden patterns must be accessible via the established conventions that indicate a correct way to go about and solve the puzzle. Yet what if there is more than one puzzle or that 'intention' may exist beyond the quote unquote author (finite person versus cosmic intelligence) and that like a RNG those same letters could carry other meaning that is potentially relevant in a given instance or could be referenced or a shared or unshared key could decrypt. This is more the Hunter S. Thompson-Timothy Leary key exchange approach to cryptography, psychodelicode perhaps, akin to cloud-code, observing the sky for recognizable patterns of meaning or significance, consciousness as divining rod, tuning into N-variables depending on individual or shared literacy, all about language in its symbolic, mathematical, logical foundation in terms of patterning, constellations of ideas, building from truth (A:A), finding it, locating it, securing it, yet with time it could move, change shape, and so trying to grasp what is there if it is there, the grounded moving toward sanity, ungrounded fast tracked to madness and extreme anguish. one time pad of mind, else post-it notes and micro-cut security shredder to consider the calculus, the math is already witin the alphanumeric structure, HIOX of the spinning horizontal letters and vertical, twisting around to reveal themselves the same while others mutate, letters, words, sentences, texts, ideas this way, stories, beliefs. back to into logic, circuitry, matter, energy, this information. Crypt code in context, WYSINWYG. It is a question with potentially many correct answers depending on viewpoint, frame of reference, quantum versus classical dynamics, methodology, thought, belief. Sequencing alphabet, tabulating uppercase, lowercase cut in half along middle line, mirroring. Chess move patterns, anything mapped onto its structure as a potential interpretive device. Fractal code, within the noise, more and more structure reveals itself, likely more information in that potential framework than computational power on the order of magnitude of today's crypto breaking claims (death of universe). Can you map all the information in Kryptos, its potential relational meaning, via machine translation, how many series of encyclopedia would be needed to explain the data mining of deep significance of random connections in their associational relevance-- who decides what is true, how is it weighted probabilistically, especially if the code functions as oracle? That is, what is true within it is true, however so. How to access it, how much is there- can mathematicians figure out and model such a scenario of bounded infinities within infinities in seemingly arbitrary noise, looking, searching for structure, relational, value? And what if that is tapped as a shared reference, a small part of it, say a 2x2 grid of letters via coordinates-- is not this détournement also cryptographic. That is, its apparent noise containing meaning, given perspective- if it were to exist, and who is to say it does or does not- how is that decided-- by a binary algorithm that tests against its own conventions and modeling? Or perhaps are the machines blind in such a context if the map does not represent the territory. Of course it's black and white! -- said the grey to the gray. Randomness, noise, entropy, "structure"-- why the dogma that a binary code must determine this, why not a messy fragment with structure, or even a landscape or topography or bryce-3D model as data set, is it a deterministic view based on unique numbers, primes- what if each bit was effectively larger than the largest prime, and there are infinite bits? The issue of infallibility, infallible perspective or one correct shared viewpoint as presumption versus the cosmically difficult work of establishing this through hard-fought and hard-won hypothesis, including blood and agony- to arrive at _tentative and contingent models versus faith-based mathematics and belief systems functioning as techno-religion and crypto-theology, yet fundamentally flawed in terms of the ideas invovled at the level of the propositions, the dogma ear-shattering as if loudspeakers given official viewpoints over and over everyone is supposed to conform to, believe, "trust the technologists- trust the code" when this is exactly opposite the idea, trust truth- verify everything first, stay vigilant, check and error correct eternally. Instead that is process hacked, subverted, errors standardized-- so what is trust in such a shared environment- perhaps crypto is not so limited in terms of ideas that may use the technology as its carrier wave yet exist otherwise, as a kind of poetry of a people, a living truth that is shared, versus an inaccurate, flawed, and genuinely stupid worldview to sustain due to its basis in corruption. Does the transparent ziplock bag really surprise anyone operating in this environment? What if that is the assumption all along (presumably) and the crypto is occurring outside the 'official' lines, beyond the perspective of unshared observer, exploiters... The question of the question involves a critical detail related to what is rational, a rational versus irrational approach. Inconceivable, perhaps is the meaning of the latter though i tend to think that irrational may not really exist as a concept in terms of thinking, because like a circuit, if cause is involved, likely there is a direct connect to the path some event is occurring on, and it is a matter of perspective, if another person can understand it (rational, reasonable) or not ("irrational" yet still likely rational in some sense for the other person). This idea of paradox and crypto may be believed just an issue of some sign-based leetspeak where it appears the sign remains its original referent in a modified form, in that the letter S becomes 5 yet still functions as the letter S. A narrow consideration of this would evaluate it only in terms of the original, thus the 5=S, and essentially A=A. Though a paradoxical view could extend this into a question, what if 5 means something via kabbalah or numerology that substitutes for the letter E because it is the 5th letter of the alphabet, and thus E=S and onward into oblivion. That moves quickly into symbolism, mapping of numbers and letters onto other events and each variable could have multiple definitions or references and together function much like Chinese characters (ideographs). With alphanumerics (26 letters and 10 numbers) of 16 segment and 7 segment electronic displays, it is basically its own mastercode-base that makes every aligned text into its shared universe (U) of a global Kryptos document, any given combination running into infinity given perspective, conceptual scaffolding, shared libraries. It is not surface, not a foil or ploy though it could be if a deception to establish barriers. And so how is the person without the key to know where to enter and how to interpret, and even if they have the key and the 'official plaintext' how do they know where the encryption begins and ends-- unless to assume software and hardware crypto defines the 'side', that there is no edge to land on, it can only be the simplest view... albeit wrong. And to either constantly be wrong in interpretation or run into limits, much like binarization in reverse, though paradox in its place. A wall of chaos, unintelligible communication- even with keys, even with decodes, one time in one context may vanish like a raindrop into the ground to be recycled elsewhere, it no longer exists the same, the field has changed or not, the truth has transformed, time has passed, the coin still spins eternally until it stops. What if their stopped time is the wrong view, built upon a warped, skewed, distorted framework. Trying to relate from that relativism into another could cause it to be torn apart, any structural connections would bring down their weakened connections and constructions -- yes go ahead, copy it, use it, make assumptions and join the conversation... and it will be entropy in action once the bending takes hold, crushing at the false views, the lies and deceptions unable to reason or continue the charade, collapsing upon themselves via unbearable pressures, the difference continually falling, falsity unable to be sustained, geologic events in the lives of peoples nervous systems, psychically torn apart, unable to cope, adapt, continue. Brutal involution, fracturing, implosion, insane weakening via intolerable stresses, shattered into fragments the schizoid imposters moving straight toward the extreme each and every variance from their false modeling. A false universe torn apart piece by piece, bit by bit, the psychological impact of losing total control due to serving fundamentally wrong ideas and beliefs. To know and realize that there is only nothingness to embrace as the remaining option, the void, emptiness, hopelessness, death, that that is the future of such activity. What is worse than trying to kill off the human race? -- failing to do so and having to deal with the consequences. #half of what i write here is false (right) --- holographic context, multiperspectival, unexpected, psychic blips, assumption of freudian slip as conventional tell, mystical code, inversion: signal is noise; noise is signal, error and anomaly, question of time, x=y as false POV, pT=T is security exploit binary decrypt => reveal? [official plaintext] : + [secret1] [secret2] ... [secretN] SPECIAL SYMBOLS TEST: [∞] [∞] [∞] <== infinity ?? ATTACHMENT TEST: capture.9!f

1 0

Re: [liberationtech] iPhone5S Fingerprint and 5th amendment
by Eugen Leitl 11 Sep '13

11 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe(a)cdt.org> ----- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:27:42 -0400 From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe(a)cdt.org> To: liberationtech <liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu> CC: Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> Subject: Re: [liberationtech] iPhone5S Fingerprint and 5th amendment User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 On 9/11/13 12:08 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:04:44AM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > >> Similarly, any other sort of one-way algorithm that prevents you from >> reconstructing a valid input from the stored data is not going to work. > > Typical fingerprint matching uses classification, recognizing and > encoding multiple features into a vector. You could use a one-way > hash on that vector. This is likely subject to a precompiled hash > lookup table attack, as the number of all possible fingerprints, > quantized via a classification vector is not that large. There's a good deal of existing research out there on using symmeteric hashes -- a hash that can accept discrete inputs in arbitrary order and always calculate to the same value -- for secure biometric template storage and matching. Here is a paper I point people to that many of you will find absolutely fascinating (although it's been some years so do check citations pointing to this for further work): Sergey Tulyakov, Faisal Farooq, Praveer Mansukhani, & Venu Govindaraju. (2007). Symmetric hash functions for secure fingerprint biometric systems. Pattern Recognition Letters, 28(16), 2427–2436. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222570842_Symmetric_hash_functions_… -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Senior Staff Technologist Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I ST NW STE 1100 Washington DC 20006-4011 (p) 202-407-8825 (f) 202-637-0968 joe(a)cdt.org PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key fingerprint: BE7E A889 7742 8773 301B 4FA1 C0E2 6D90 F257 77F8 ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

Dual EC DRBG Memo
by Rich Jones 11 Sep '13

11 Sep '13

NYT confirming suspected Dual EC DRBG backdoor, citing leaked memo, but didn't include the PDF/PPT/mbox/nfo/whatever.. Does anybody have a copy? From http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-rest… But internal memos leaked by a former N.S.A. contractor, Edward Snowden, > suggest that the N.S.A. generated one of the random number generators used > in a 2006 N.I.S.T. standard — called the Dual EC DRBG standard<http://web.archive.org/web/20060930163233/http://csrc.nist.gov/publications…>— which contains a back door for the N.S.A. In publishing the standard, > N.I.S.T. acknowledged “contributions” from N.S.A., but not primary > authorship. > R

3 3

Re: [Cryptography] SPDZ, a practical protocol for Multi-Party Computation
by Eugen Leitl 11 Sep '13

11 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from Max Kington <mkington(a)webhanger.com> ----- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 18:14:42 +0100 From: Max Kington <mkington(a)webhanger.com> To: Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> Cc: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net, cryptography(a)randombit.net, Cryptography List <cryptography(a)metzdowd.com> Subject: Re: [Cryptography] SPDZ, a practical protocol for Multi-Party Computation On 11 Sep 2013 18:01, "Eugen Leitl" <eugen(a)leitl.org> wrote: > > > http://www.mathbulletin.com/research/Breakthrough_in_cryptography_could_res… > > Breakthrough in cryptography could result in more secure computing > (9/10/2013) > > Tags: computer science, research, security, cryptography > > Nigel Smart, Professor of Cryptology > > New research to be presented at the 18th European Symposium on Research in > Computer Security (ESORICS 2013) this week could result in a sea change in > how to secure computations. > > The collaborative work between the University of Bristol and Aarhus > University (Denmark) will be presented by Bristol PhD student Peter Scholl > from the Department of Computer Science. > > The paper, entitled 'Practical covertly secure MPC for dishonest majority - > or: Breaking the SPDZ limits', builds upon earlier joint work between Bristol > and Aarhus and fills in the missing pieces of the jigsaw from the groups > prior work that was presented at the CRYPTO conference in Santa Barbara last > year. > > The SPDZ protocol (pronounced "Speedz") is a co-development between Bristol > and Aarhus and provides the fastest protocol known to implement a theoretical > idea called "Multi-Party Computation". > > The idea behind Multi-Party Computation is that it should enable two or more > people to compute any function of their choosing on their secret inputs, > without revealing their inputs to either party. One example is an election, > voters want their vote to be counted but they do not want their vote made > public. > > The protocol developed by the universities turns Multi-Party Computation from > a theoretical tool into a practical reality. Using the SPDZ protocol the team > can now compute complex functions in a secure manner, enabling possible > applications in the finance, drugs and chemical industries where computation > often needs to be performed on secret data. > > Nigel Smart, Professor of Cryptology in the University of Bristol's > Department of Computer Science and leader on the project, said: "We have > demonstrated our protocol to various groups and organisations across the > world, and everyone is impressed by how fast we can actually perform secure > computations. > > "Only a few years ago such a theoretical idea becoming reality was considered > Alice in Wonderland style over ambitious hope. However, we in Bristol > realised around five years ago that a number of advances in different areas > would enable the pipe dream to be achieved. It is great that we have been > able to demonstrate our foresight was correct." > > The University of Bristol is now starting to consider commercialising the > protocol via a company Dyadic Security Limited, co-founded by Professor Smart > and Professor Yehuda Lindell from Bar-Ilan University in Israel. A colleague is looking into this venture. I gave him a synopsis of their additions to SPDZ. There is a white paper describing their technology at their website which talks about the other two related protocols, Yao and Tiny-OT. One interesting use that occurred to me was the ability to split the two nodes in their implementation across jurisdictions. Especially those who are unlikely to ever collaborate. That giving you an advantage over a typical HSM which could live in a jurisdiction that could be seized. The wp and associated bibliography is available at http://www.dyadicsec.com/SiteAssets/resources1/DyadicWhitePaper.pdf Max > > Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by the > University of Bristol > > _______________________________________________ > The cryptography mailing list > cryptography(a)metzdowd.com > http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

[Cryptography] Defenses against pervasive versus targeted intercept
by Eugen Leitl 11 Sep '13

11 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)gmail.com> ----- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:11:52 -0400 From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)gmail.com> To: "cryptography(a)metzdowd.com" <cryptography(a)metzdowd.com> Subject: [Cryptography] Defenses against pervasive versus targeted intercept I have spent most of yesterday writing up much of the traffic on the list so far in the form of an Internet Draft. I am now at the section on controls and it occurs to me that the controls relevant to preventing PRISM-like pervasive intercept capabilities are not necessarily restricted to controls that protect against targeted intercept. The problem I have with PRISM is that it is a group of people whose politics I probably find repellent performing a dragnet search that may later be used for McCarthyite/Hooverite inquisitions. So I am much more concerned about the pervasive part than the ability to perform targeted attacks on a few individuals who have come to notice. If the NSA wanted my help intercepting Al Zawahiri's private emails then sign me up. My problem is that they are intercepting far too much an lying about what they are doing. Let us imagine for the sake of argument that the NSA has cracked 1024 bit RSA using some behemoth computer at a cost of roughly $1 million per key and taking a day to do so. Given such a capability it would be logical for them to attack high traffic/high priority 1024 bit keys. I have not looked into the dates when the 2048 bit roll out began (seems to me we have been talking about it ten years) but that might be consistent with that 2010 date. If people are using plain TLS without perfect forward secrecy, that crack gives the NSA access to potentially millions of messages an hour. If the web browsers are all using PFS then the best they can do is one message a day. PFS provides security even when the public keys used in the conversation are compromised before the conversation takes place. It does not prevent attack but it reduces the capacity of the attacker. Similar arguments can be made for other less-than-perfect key exchange schemes. It is not necessary for a key exchange scheme to be absolutely secure against all possible attack for it to be considered PRISM-Proof. So the key distribution scheme I am looking at does have potential points of compromise because I want it to be something millions could use rather than just a few thousand geeks who will install but never use. But the objective is to make those points of compromise uneconomic to exploit on the scale of PRISM. The NSA should have accepted court oversight of their activities. If they had strictly limited their use of the cryptanalytic capabilities then the existence would not have been known to low level grunts like Snowden and we probably would not have found out. Use of techniques like PFS restores balance. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

Re: [guardian-dev] pgp, nsa, rsa
by Eugen Leitl 11 Sep '13

11 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from Billy Gray <wgray(a)zetetic.net> ----- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:32:02 -0400 From: Billy Gray <wgray(a)zetetic.net> To: Aaron Lux <a(a)aaronlux.com> Cc: Guardian Dev <guardian-dev(a)lists.mayfirst.org> Subject: Re: [guardian-dev] pgp, nsa, rsa Do you guys follow Matthew Green? Great stuff: http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/09/on-nsa.html http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/09/a-note-on-nsa-future-and-fi… I think he does a good job of breaking down what's in these recent reports. It's a good thing to send to people who read the NY Times report and think that all crypto is now broken (like a friend of mine asked me at NWC yesterday). And then there was this: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/nsa-matthew-green-take… One more question: any of y'all used libTomCrypt? We have an experimental implementation of it in SQLCipher. Open-source alternatives to OpenSSL could use some love. DJB's NaCl is neat, too. Curious if you guys are leery of relying so heavily on OpenSSL, given the above. http://libtom.org/?page=features&newsitems=5&whatfile=crypt http://nacl.cr.yp.to Cheers, Billy On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Aaron Lux <a(a)aaronlux.com> wrote: > NSA’s mission includes deciphering enciphered communications is not a > secret, and is not news*. I am concerned the nytimes.com article will > have the effect of causing the public to lose trust in all encryption > including open-source algorithms. Hopefully people realize reviewing > source code for encryption algorithms** is much more relaxing than > reading the NY Times. > > > * nsa.gov states that its mission includes leading “the U.S. Government > in cryptology … in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and > our allies.” > > ** ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/gnupg/gnupg-2.0.21.tar.bz2 and > > http://mirror.team-cymru.org/pub/OpenBSD/OpenSSH/portable/openssh-6.2p2.tar… > > > Look at the top and bottom of every page: TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NO FORN. > > This is a secret document. > > > > Cheers, > > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > Guardian-dev mailing list > > Post: Guardian-dev(a)lists.mayfirst.org > List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev > > To Unsubscribe > Send email to: Guardian-dev-unsubscribe(a)lists.mayfirst.org > Or visit: > https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/guardian-dev/wgray%40zetetic.net > > You are subscribed as: wgray(a)zetetic.net > -- Team Zetetic http://zetetic.net _______________________________________________ Guardian-dev mailing list Post: Guardian-dev(a)lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev To Unsubscribe Send email to: Guardian-dev-unsubscribe(a)lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/guardian-dev/eugen%40leitl.org You are subscribed as: eugen(a)leitl.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

3 2