Re: Standard for Stenography?
Firstly, congratulations for Sergey Goldgaber's stubborn pushing of this topic, for Bill Stewart's observation: "simple stego-programs, stealthy encryption programs"
I disagree with pretty much everything in your message, and since I'm the one who opened the topic and who is writing the code, my opinion would seem to count for quite a bit more than yours. I'm not going to repeat the reasons why the kind of standard you propose is a bad idea, you can fetch the messages as easily as I can. Cc:ed to the list only so that no one thinks Gary's proposal was accepted. The permutation idea remains the best. By the way, this discussion is an example of something I have labelled the "silence is invisible" phenomenon. It goes like this: there's a discussion; some of the participants work out an answer, and as far as they're concerned the discussion is over. However, other participants don't understand the answer, and keep on talking. In a physical meeting, the talkers would notice the annoyed looks on the faces of everyone else; or if the meeting had a good facilitator, he or she would catch on to the misunderstanding and correct it; but in cyberspace, those feedback mechanisms don't happen. --- Jef
I agree completely with Jef Poskanzer's observation: (Ironically, experienced list members generally avoid "I agree" comments, which means disagreements over the basics generally get more "air time" than agreements. This is a related point to the one Jef is making, and is the reason I'm speaking up here to agree with him.)
By the way, this discussion is an example of something I have labelled the "silence is invisible" phenomenon. It goes like this: there's a discussion; some of the participants work out an answer, and as far as they're concerned the discussion is over. However, other participants don't understand the answer, and keep on talking. In a physical meeting, the talkers would notice the annoyed looks on the faces of everyone else; or if the meeting had a good facilitator, he or she would catch on to the misunderstanding and correct it; but in cyberspace, those feedback mechanisms don't happen.
An important observation! I'm sure many of us who've been on the list for a long time (since the start for many of us, without a break!) are feeling frustrated at the same old tired topics being aired and--worse--the same old errors being promulgated. Supposedly new ciphers, rehashes of TEMPEST, continuous explanations of "stenography" by people who don't know how to spell it, and so on. Every one of these tired topics get rehashed every month or so by a new "entering class." Since there's no moderation, the "senior class" can't really stop the freshmen from going on about some pet theory. (Not to trash pet theories, you understand. We all have them. I just want to _again_ encourgage newcomers to do several things. First, read the list for a while--perhaps a month--before making serious posts. Second, read some of the crypto literature. Third, read sci.crypt and talk.politics.crypto and bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a substitute for either. Fourth, read what other people write and carefully think about the implications. That ought to do for starters.) When the list had 300 people, a year or so ago, this was beginning to be a problem, but at least the topics were relatively fresh for many folks. Now, a year later, there are more than 750 people on the list. A continuous input of new subscribers. A constant stream of rehashed ideas and perpetuated mistakes. (Don't get me wrong, though! Some new ideas and new code from folks like Product Cypher have been fantastic! But a lot of newcomers seem unaware of the basics of crypto and want to "share" their thought processes with all 750 subscribers. Some are even speaking favorably of Clipper and key escrow....one wonders why they are on this list.) Anyway, I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing newcomers to the list. I'm just agreeing with Jef's observation and suggesting that too many topics are being taken over by the "clue challenged." Read the literature! Or at least parts of it. Read the stuff in the Cypherpunks archive site (soda.berkeley.edu, in pub/cypherpunks), including the "Glossary" that Eric Hughes and I put together for the first Cypherpunks meeting in September, 1992. Yes, a FAQ is sorely needed. I'm still working on a FAQ for this list, but I fear it will largely go unread by many of the folks who need to read it the most. Please prove me wrong. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Wed, 2 Mar 1994, Jef Poskanzer replied to Gary Jeffers:
I disagree with pretty much everything in your message, and since I'm the one who opened the topic and who is writing the code, my opinion would seem to count for quite a bit more than yours. I'm not going to repeat the
By the way, this discussion is an example of something I have labelled the "silence is invisible" phenomenon.
Jef
I think this "silence" has a good side. I've only read this list for a short time, but I already respect the oppinions of a few regulars. I don't expect every idea I post to the list to be completely new (quite the opposite, usually). The few replies I, and most other newbies, get are usually not very thought out, and have as many holes in them as the original suggestion. We debate back and forth for a short while, but seem to be generally ignored. The 'elders' on the list stay silent. Its when those respected few regulars speak that my ears prick up. I, for one, haven't read all the literature on the subject. So the oppinions of someone who has are greatly valued. If genuine intrest is shown in something you've proposed it tells you that you're on the right track. Input coming from the 'elders' is doubly important. It would be nice if constructive, intelligent criticism was offered on every post. Unfortuantely, newbies tend to get flamed more often than praised. In that regard, I believe that the "silence" from those who know better is usually good. If I recieved the sort of annoyed response that Gary Jeffers got from you on one of my first post, I don't think I would have stuck around for long. Perhaps some of the senior cypherpunks would prefer a moderated list where all newbie discussion is nipped in the bud. In that case, I suggest that they form the "eLyTe-cYpHeRpUnKs" list, and distribute it privately among themselves. I believe that fresh blood is essential for the development of the "cypherpunks"; so, this route is not recommended. Sergey
Sergey Goldgaber writes: (quoting Jef P.)
By the way, this discussion is an example of something I have labelled the "silence is invisible" phenomenon.
Jef
I think this "silence" has a good side. I've only read this list for a short time, but I already respect the oppinions of a few regulars. I don't expect every idea I post to the list to be completely new (quite the opposite, usually). The few replies I, and most other newbies, get are usually not very thought out, and have as many holes in them as the original suggestion. We debate back and forth for a short while, but seem to be generally ignored. The 'elders' on the list stay silent.
I want to take this opportunity to say that I do _not_ disparage the enthusiasm of newcomers like Sergey G. and Gary Jeffers. The "problem," to the extent theere is one, is that newcomers frequently have a bunch of things they really want to say (which is good), but lack the context to see how their points fit in with what's possible to do, what's already been done, and what is naive (which is bad). And after a while, having said what they wanted to say their posts taper off. (A few of us are still blabbing incessantly a year and a half after joining the list. Hey, it beats working for a living.) Gary sent me some e-mail inquiring about the archive of past postings--regrettably, my current understanding is that the toad.com archives are not (yet?) available for browsing and retrieval of past posts. Maybe someday. Chronological age has little to do with being an "old-timer" or a "newcomer." For example, Sameer Parekh is but a freshman at Berkeley, but he is surely and old-timer. Stick around for several months on the list, and you'll be an old-timer.
Its when those respected few regulars speak that my ears prick up. I, for one, haven't read all the literature on the subject. So the oppinions of someone who has are greatly valued. If genuine intrest is shown in something you've proposed it tells you that you're on the right track. Input coming from the 'elders' is doubly important.
Here are some things newcomers can do: 1. Immediately run out and buy a copy of Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography." Do this before doing anything else. It covers so many of the areas we deal with that to not have it handy is a waste of your and our time. The book is pricey, at $45, but go out and mow some lawns or donate some blood if you can't afford it. You can't afford to be on this list without it (or some equivalent texts). 2. Read the various articles on crypto that are mentioned here fairly often (and which will be in the FAQ). 3. Speaking of FAQs, some good ones already exist in sci.crypt. The "Crypt Cabal" puts out a good one every month or so. Others exist. Read them. 4. In general, read sci.crypt and talk.politics.crypto. And comp.org.eff.talk. And maybe the Clipper and PGP groups. 5. Speaking of PGP, some good stuff in the documentation for PGP. 6. Finally, hold off on posting for at least a few weeks after joining the list. Too many folks "shoot their wad" by hyperenthusiastically expounding on a basically flawed idea too early in their history on the list.
It would be nice if constructive, intelligent criticism was offered on every post. Unfortuantely, newbies tend to get flamed more often than praised. In that regard, I believe that the "silence" from those who know better is usually good.
The problem is that about 700-800 people are on this list--though I find this hard to believe...and certainly many of them must be deleting nearly everything unread. If each "Has anyone ever heard of foo?" post was carefully replied to....
If I recieved the sort of annoyed response that Gary Jeffers got from you on one of my first post, I don't think I would have stuck around for long. Perhaps some of the senior cypherpunks would prefer a moderated list where all newbie discussion is nipped in the bud. In that case, I suggest that they form the "eLyTe-cYpHeRpUnKs" list, and distribute it privately among themselves. I believe that fresh blood is essential for the development of the "cypherpunks"; so, this route is not recommended.
I think the response Gary got were actually quite polite, especially the ones that stated the fact that his views were likely wrong and should not, by silent assent, be taken as the consensus of the list. No one called him names or told him to get off the list. Even my comments on "stenography" were not all that harsh, in my opinion. (And we've since exchanged e-mail.) I don't think any of us want to see newbies "nipped in the bud." But we certainly all want to see newbies brought up to speed. A moderated list is not being sought by anyone I know, at least not for the Cyperpunks list (though Perry Metzger has proposed his own moderated list on crypto issues). Many newcomers to crypto have become serious contributors in short order. Likewise, many old-timers (like David Sternlight) have never reached the point of being a "contributor," so draw your own conclusions. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Thu, 3 Mar 1994, Timothy C. May wrote:
The "problem," to the extent theere is one, is that newcomers frequently have a bunch of things they really want to say (which is good), but lack the context to see how their points fit in with what's possible to do, what's already been done, and what is naive (which is bad). And after a while, having said what they wanted to say their posts taper off.
Flaming is no solution to this "problem". In fact, this "problem" can, with proper guidance, lead to an enriching growing experience (forgive me for sounding camp). Most very "naive" newbies usually get responses that are anything but helpfull; unless their queries are phrased in a submissive, almost servile tone. At the very least, a certain humility is expected. This pattern is by no means limited to this list, or even the whole Internet. It is the "presumptuous" _and_ "naive" newbies that get flamed the most. They are the safest targets. It may be wise to realize that even the _most_ presumptuous and _most_ naive newbie has potential for enriching the group tremendously. In these cases, flaming usually turns out to be even more naive than whatever it was the newbie has/hasn't done to deserve the flame. The senior, as many have pointed out, should know better.
Gary sent me some e-mail inquiring about the archive of past postings--regrettably, my current understanding is that the toad.com archives are not (yet?) available for browsing and retrieval of past posts. Maybe someday.
A great pity. I suspect that some the contents of the archive may be far more educational than even the fabled "Applied Cryptography". :)
Chronological age has little to do with being an "old-timer" or a "newcomer."
Thank you for pointing that out. However, it was not my intention to imply age differences with the terms "newbie", "elder", or "senior". Nor was it my intention to put anyone on the defensive.
For example, Sameer Parekh is but a freshman at Berkeley, but he is surely and old-timer. Stick around for several months on the list, and you'll be an old-timer.
1. Immediately run out and buy a copy of Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography." Do this before doing anything else. It covers so many of the areas we deal with that to not have it handy is a waste of your and our time. The book is pricey, at $45, but go out and mow some lawns or donate some blood if you can't afford it. You can't afford to be on this list without it (or some equivalent texts).
For some, actual "live" conversations hold more in the way of being educational than any textbook, no matter how well written. Your suggestion is well taken, nonetheless.
2. Read the various articles on crypto that are mentioned here fairly often (and which will be in the FAQ). 3. Speaking of FAQs, some good ones already exist in sci.crypt. The "Crypt Cabal" puts out a good one every month or so. Others exist. Read them. 4. In general, read sci.crypt and talk.politics.crypto. And comp.org.eff.talk. And maybe the Clipper and PGP groups. 5. Speaking of PGP, some good stuff in the documentation for PGP. 6. Finally, hold off on posting for at least a few weeks after joining the list. Too many folks "shoot their wad" by hyperenthusiastically expounding on a basically flawed idea too early in their history on the list.
It would be ideal if every "newbie" had the time/energy to do all these before posting. It may minimize the chances of "reinventing the wheel". Luckily, I believe the "cypherpunks" list is a fine way to learn a little about cryptography. Not only by reading, but by participating as well. It may not be as effective as actually managing to read and understand a 400+ page reference book on cryptography. Nor would I urge any prospective cryptographers to to take this as their only route of study. But it may be a good (dare I say "fun"?) introduction.
The problem is that about 700-800 people are on this list--though I find this hard to believe...
That is a problem. There aren't enough! 700 dabbling cypherbabies and maybe a dozen serious cypherpunks are less than a handfull. Perhaps the list needs to be subdivided (or renamed to something more boring :) But I don't think we need to worry about there being too many of us.
and certainly many of them must be deleting nearly everything unread. If each "Has anyone ever heard of foo?" post was carefully replied to....
I do not seriously expect a constructive, intelligent reply to every post. I was meerly listing it as another ideal. Constructive replys need not be public, BTW. Especially if the topic(s) has been thoroughly covered previously.
I think the response Gary got were actually quite polite, especially the ones that stated the fact that his views were likely wrong and should not, by silent assent, be taken as the consensus of the list. No one called him names or told him to get off the list. Even my comments on "stenography" were not all that harsh, in my opinion.
Yes. And, names would be comparatively mild to trashing his account (something which many readers are very capable if not willing to do). And that would be mild compared to sending him a mail bomb. In any case, the responses he recieved were mostly less than helpfull. I certainly expected more from certain senior members of this list.
I don't think any of us want to see newbies "nipped in the bud." But we certainly all want to see newbies brought up to speed.
Flaming them(us) does not usually "get them up to speed".
Many newcomers to crypto have become serious contributors in short order. Likewise, many old-timers (like David Sternlight) have never reached the point of being a "contributor," so draw your own conclusions.
I hope I'll have the time to become a serious contributor (seriously :). I certainly have the intrest.
--Tim May
Sergey
On Wed, 2 Mar 1994, Jef Poskanzer wrote:
By the way, this discussion is an example of something I have labelled the "silence is invisible" phenomenon. It goes like this: there's a discussion; some of the participants work out an answer, and as far as they're concerned the discussion is over. However, other participants don't understand the answer, and keep on talking. In a physical meeting, the talkers would notice the annoyed looks on the faces of everyone else; or if the meeting had a good facilitator, he or she would catch on to the misunderstanding and correct it; but in cyberspace, those feedback mechanisms don't happen. --- Jef
I agree that it does not happen in that way in cyberspace, but I disagree that it does not happen at all. Confused people in cyberspace tend to talk of topic instead of being silent. If you are a good moderator, you can almost read the minds of the people who are confused. I admit it takes more skill in cyberspace, but it is still quite possible. _ . _ ___ _ . _ ===-|)/\\/|V|/\/\ (_)/_\|_|\_/(_)/_\|_| Stop by for an excursion into the-=== ===-|)||| | |\/\/ mud.crl.com 8888 (_) Virtual Bay Area! -===
participants (4)
-
Jef Poskanzer -
Jeremy Cooper -
Sergey Goldgaber -
tcmay＠netcom.com