September 2013 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

NSA IDA Cryptological Research Centers
by John Young 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

The Institute for Defense Analyses, based in Alexandria, VA, is a 50-year partner of NSA. It has two Centers for Communications Research at Princeton, NJ, and La Jolla, CA, both doing cryptological research for NSA: http://www.idaccr.org/ http://www.ccrwest.org/ The latter's web site lists only this offering: [Quote] La Jolla Covering Repository A (v,k,t)-covering design is a collection of k-element subsets, called blocks, of {1,2,...,v}, such that any t-element subset is contained in at least one block. This site contains a collection of good (v,k,t)-coverings. Each of these coverings gives an upper bound for the corresponding C(v,k,t), the smallest possible number of blocks in such a covering design. The limit for coverings is v<100, k<=25, and t<=8 just to draw the line somewhere. Only coverings with at most 100000 blocks are given, except for some which were grandfathered in. Some Steiner systems (coverings in which every t-set is covered exactly once) which are too big for the database will be included in the link below. [Unquote] What is "covering" and how does it related to cryptology? ----- Eyeballs of the two centers: http://cryptome.org/2013-info/09/nsa-ccr/nsa-ccr.htm

2 1

[24] signaling systems
by brian carroll 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

for twenty years i have been thinking about crypto ideas in the abstract and at a certain point around Y2K encountered an overview book chock full of examples of various crypto systems, from earliest days into the computing present. having a background in architectural study and independent research, what really captured my interest was the ancient approach to signaling via what may be called 'communications infrastructure', in the military sense. to go once step further into this, it is that a particular physical structure could be established, a signaling unit [z], which is then repeated elsewhere at some distance, thus [z2], and that a long chain of these could be lined up to send a message back and forth through the connected system: [z1] <--- [z2] --- [z3] ---> [zN] obviously this could be connected to present-day computers as electronic devices that route and forward messages. though consider the same concept without electromagnetic technology as the foundation and slower than lightspeed transmission, or having gaps and delays between these interchanges, such that visual observation and physical motion and symbolic messaging could be employed and transmit and receive messages over long distances faster than a rider on horse or perhaps even an airplane. this references 'the semaphore' as a signaling system- and what i want to add to this is a typological consideration that has architectural precedent in this same context. in that if there are signaling stations that are buildings and have adjustable mechanical arms for signals or codes, that it is this 'unit' could be considered a typical repeatable construction much like that of a building type -- that has particular programming in its design, related to its functioning -- and thus moving from flag signaling to a 18th c. signaling tower, this "signaling infrastructure" is, in some way, an early indication of what the circuitboard of civilization will later develop into when electrified and buildings are plug-and-play in a coordinated and linked environment, where this signaling is ubiquitous if not pollutive and yet essentially invisible -- except for the artifacts, and fragments of this hidden system. and thus, as with these earlier non-electric and non-electronic ~telegraphic systems, so too their evolution into telegraph, telephone, broadcast radio & television, cellphone, and data and internet networks where this signaling occurs at many levels simultaneously within civilization today. the reason TYPE is mentioned is because it can help make sense of what is going on, when considering that some artifacts may be buildings or connected to them, via tools or systems, whereby evaluation and excavation of these hidden or subconscious artifacts can help make sense of the environment that is the context for observation and basic relations today. (Seeing Cyberspace in some basic sense). thus the 'semaphore tower' in relation to the broadcast or cellphone towers of today, in terms of extension and their juxtaposition. for instance, a 'public square' aspect within mass or individual media, channels in these same realms that were absent in previous signaling and involved gatherings in buildings or courtyards or theaters, versus television studios and distributed tv sets. the larger idea is that, understanding these cybernetic systems requires understanding the building types and artifacts as components on a circuitboard, and thus how they function, what their code is, how they are programmed then allows their internal and external actions to be evaluated in terms of their own and the overall circuitry involved. so this is another example of empirical evaluation versus ungrounded relativism, whereby the latter approach could put bad components into the shared environment, short-circuit things and use all the energy for itself, and as long as it is not analyzed or error-corrected in this way, can continue to do so, etc. this can also be a model of the individual or the entire world, as circuit, and how computers mediate this condition, within their own limiting frameworks (which is the binary constraint, and related to issues of language and signs, as to what is real and can be communicated). so a conceptualization i have used before to map this out in the (natural/artificial/virtual) environment is "tools/buildings/systems" to see how the infrastructure and built environment relate, including its extension into the hidden or unseen realm of 'cyberspace' that appears dreamlike by comparison to physical objects. thus the question of what information actually is, or data, or a 'bit' in terms of its physicality, and the necessity of having literacy move into a realm of physics to be able to account for everyday experience and observation in the existing realms. the environment is saturated with invisible signaling, citizens and environment including wildlife are being massively radiated by this electromagnetic approach, that is carrying "data". so while the signaling may exist in an invisible or impermeable realm to basic experience and appear wholly intangible as abstract information disconnected from the known world, it is through the artifacts of infrastructure that this signaling can begin to be understood- through the aesthetics of wooden poles and metal pylons and broadcast towers and microwave and satellite dishes, that the system of transmission and reception of data, in a realm of powerlines and antennae, begins to have physicality and groundedness, in terms of direct observation. 'the internet' is in the wires, it is signaling between the transmitter and receiver as it is then technically and automatically interpreted - via signaling units. routers, computers, cellphones, televisions, radios, encryption devices. and so in some sense, the data stream is the signaling and there is a surrounding context or environment this transfer of information is occurring in. and as conceived, 'the binary' ones and zeroes oftentimes represent this realm or emblemize it, as if technocratic heraldry which functions as a shield or coat of arms via various protocols and standards. and yet as a worldview coursing through the veins of society, "the perspective" captured or constructed in that data framework could be grossly inaccurate or out of touch with the real world as it exists and instead promote a false perspective, due to relying on a structure of pseudo-truth for 'shared awareness'. thus a huge error rate could be the foundation of this signaling system as information. it would be equivalent to using flags to send messages where the messages are flawed or warped perception, and repeatedly communicating on that basis for the shared connection. and how the game "telephone" indicates over time how a signal could degrade via lossy transmission, as this may rely to substandard ideas even within a digital context. and thus it is to question the existence of such infrastructure and artifacts, and their use and potential development in new terms as devices for signaling and shared communication. what if vastly improved systems are possible, based on other approaches, where what is on the inside of the system accurately is modeling what is on the outside and it is in service to truth, not in denial of it. and in this way, so too cryptology and cipher systems that could signal beyond the existing conceptions, due to having a more accurate framework to function within, in that these signaling components of the circuitboard could be more wide-ranging and useful than expert and corrupted and devolved technical systems of today, trapped within ideology. that, the existing collapsed system, is nothing less than an electromagnetic labyrinth. some day it will be fascinating to learn from those involved the extent of its mysteries and ongoing intrigue. --- semaphore signals --- wikipedia has a disambiguation page for [semaphores] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_%28disambiguation%29' and so there are flag semaphores http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_semaphore semaphore lines (18th c. semaphore towers) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_line and these move into remaining infrastructures of today, including rail signaling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_semaphore_signal and traffic signals (to perhaps include live highway signage) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_semaphore so imagine that the earliest instances probably involved state communications in a security/secrecy context, if not diplomatic and related to connection with remote territory or a boundary, and that that content moves into the electronic computer network and is zoned into a particular realm of intra-state and international state-state communication. and similar typological units or 'mechanisms' for conveying signals abstract into stop/go/yield for pedestrians and cars, which can be overridden by police and emergency vehicles and funeral hearses via special switch. and thus like a router or some traffic management protocol that is rule-based, the code of green, yellow, red, is transmitted and received or written and read as output and used to instruct the data flowing through the system, as it is accurately interpreted and obliged. and if not, redundancy of monitoring by police or traffic cameras to mail a ticket and license photo. and aesthetically it is interesting that 'civilization' the world over involves these basic infrastructural systems. i have read that colors for traffic lights may be different in certain countries though am not familiar with this. and yet, aspects of infrastructure retain a general pattern that is repeated and 'typical' in terms of systems that repeat and are shared, even across cultures that can be ideologically apposed yet require similar technology to function. thus the symbology of the wooden pole, metal tower as an indication of 'modernization' and in the 1960s, the cobra-head streetlight as a leading edge of this universal aesthetic of development, worldwide. so for the electronic signaling system of traffic lights, there must be a connection to the poles and towers leading back to an electrical power plant, to complete the circuit. so too, computers the same. wireless the same. tools, buildings, systems. mapping this out in its functioning. then it is possible to get a sense of the boundaries involved, the dimensions, the framework and relations established. including between componentry itself. thing is, most traffic signals are probably routed to a central Department of Transportation that monitors the circuit and involves vast analysis of traffic flows, timing of schedules and events, and weather, and then continuously seeks to modify and improve its functioning via small changes or tweaks that test against hypotheses and modify the system to attempt to improve it. so imagine there are 2,000 traffic cameras that route into a traffic monitoring building via network connections and basically this is the program of the building. its purpose. if it were an external signaling system those same traffic lights may be sending signals into vehicles and getting responses back, and reading and writing data in some other dimensionality and then it would be more like a signaling system of flags and codes, where it is not just read-only for those vehicles operating within the system. RFID lane passes and toll booths perhaps. or, in a disconnected or decentralized realm, GPS dashboard units and satellites as they feed back to other buildings and monitoring systems which may or may not be correlated further. consider a typical home or work computer then, in terms of a signaling system and cryptography. it is presumed to be able to send data from one computer to another in any other context, without respect to environment, and be afforded the right to privacy, secrecy, and security by default. and the reality is that these [computers] are connected via a power system and [network] that while they may be interconnected [PC] <--> [PC], also inherently is connected to other infrastructure within the circuit, buildings, including powerplant, software companies, network providers, and in terms of cryptography, the NSA itself as an inherent structural connection. so like the DoT example above, expecting the NSA to keep on one side of the windshield no matter the surrounding context may not be realistic given the environment, if there is compromised circuitry or short-circuiting by default in the shared/unshared situation. and given their institutional technical capacity, certainly they have the capacity to real-time access your dashboard GPS data and vehicle location via infrastructure, anything in your banking or computer, should that be legally allowed or required for the vital security of the state, as this relates to issues of privacy and protection and continuation of the shared state as an entity. yet what if they were on the other side of this boundary by ideological default, for most everyone, and leaning so far forward that all these various infrastructure systems were a means for doing business and commercialization and populist takeover of state systems by a particular mindset or aligned group of people. what if the traffic signal was subverted and you got the wrong color and drive into a semi-truck and lose your life via such a bizarre glitch, purposive to an overruling, hostile political agenda that aligns with a hidden dictatorship. what then. in other words- what if the NSA has gone political, and so too, infrastructural systems, tools, buildings and their programming, functioning against the civilian, human population. where are the boundaries, limits, what is expected of government, how is it accounted for, error checked and corrected, what oversight or review of activity, or is it essentially all off the books now. the potential exists for total control of civilization by manipulating the local and global infrastructure against ideological opponents. what is to prevent this if it cannot even be communicated about or 'observed' due to oppressive actions to shut down relaying of messages and conditions of mass illiteracy, and thus an incapacity to relate in the environment that exists. and so a question may be, to what extent such an infrastructural signaling system could feasibly be detached from its foundation in military operations and state security, firstly, such that the NSA or CIA or FBI as building types with programmatic functioning -would not- be accessing telecom buildings and their functioning, ISPs, data centers and server farms, switches and relays, as part of their data monitoring and oversight of this activity- when or if applicable. that in certain cases it would be assumed part of the core mission of intelligence, as it relates to security, secrecy, and privacy. in this way, an archeological excavation of these systems would seem to indicate that a 'cryptographic software' and its computing hardware is thoroughly embedded and reliant upon its monitoring and power providing infrastructure in order to operate- legally, within a safe and protected domain of appropriate use. though if this is subverted, then the boundary could seemingly be legitimately crossed by legalizing covert access and monitoring, if not take-down operations in a cyberwar scenario, against state enemies. or, in the corrupted version, a political enemies list of a hidden dictator. such as smashing their equipment via computer bugs and malware and surveilling everything they do, to exploit and harass and seek to bring about their demise, using these same institutions in a short-circuited scenario, where the state itself is attacking citizens who are operating in an appropriate realm and yet exist unprotected from aggressions of subverted institutions, revealing a secret agenda. thus, if enough drivers notice the timing is off at traffic lights and have had their equipment corrupted or data exploited, and have seen strange accidents or injuries, they may begin to wonder what is "governing" the inside actions and modeling of infrastructural system-- who is it serving, or is it trying to harm people via its subversion. and they may lose trust in using the system because it could be against them, it is only a matter of time before the wrong-color light is sent to their vehicle, etc. the integrity of these state operations then relies upon what [ideas] are governing their functioning, and how they are accounted for, in truth or pseudo-truth, or some twisted version reliant upon lies, where deception is now out in the open. --- on HIOX and signaling --- long ago discovered the master symbol i refer to as HIOX which is equivalent to the Union Jack flag and the 16 segment electronic display. and it was through Plato's Republic that the idea was realized to start rotating and mirroring alphanumerics and this symbol allows all letters and numbers to co-exist as a potential, within a single unit or 'bit' as it were, whereby the set exists: {0-9,A-Z} in a single character. such that if HIOX were tokenized as an asterisk, the word: b**, would then allow any combination of those potential letters and numbers as wildcards. this related to sets and probabilities and language that is not just linear, moving from left to right and instead, in other dimensionality, (boo, big, bad, bye, bit, bot, &c). so i had this idea, get a 16 segment display... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen-segment_display and then a microcontroller board, for me, Parallax BoE http://www.parallax.com/catalog/microcontrollers/basic-stamp/kits and program the sequence of this alphabetic change as an animation. very basic yet doable for an electronics illiterate like myself. i think i may have tried a dual 16 segment display as well. yet could not get to the next level beyond this, to do larger transformational changes, such as flipping letters vertical and horizontal across a wider area, retaining original letters and juxtaposing them in various ways, such as: b d p This approach would require more display area, and the goal was to get at a word or sentence level and be able to explore these transmutative aspects of alphanumerics as language. so there are dot matrix LED displays yet my skills and limited understanding were not capable of getting there, at the higher pin-out counts required and with other custom IC controllers to make it work. thus it bounded further exploration. for me the larger purpose of this was related to cryptography and the exploration of language broken down into its elemental patterns, as these form a kind of calculus. and as this could further become the basis for analysis, and hardware and software development in terms of signaling. for instance, running b against d may result in o, or II. since that time 10 years ago, the microcontroller market has taken off and now there are many options to choose from, including Arduino which I have no experience with and do not know if it is as ease-of-use as the Parallax system was for an absolute beginner. though there are tremendous resources and options for these microcontrollers or "custom programmable" integrated circuits (basically transistors and resistors in centipede-looking chips) that have interfaces to computers, and various modules that can be modified via existing codes and tutorials to get in the vicinity of project goals. here are a few examples of this... SparkFun Electronics- Arduino microcontrollers https://www.sparkfun.com/categories/242 if you know what you are doing, and where to start, perhaps it is fairly doable. especially if you have others to ask for assistance if a dead-end is encountered. otherwise it could seem daunting for the beginner who has no electronics background. and yet it seems step-by-step, beginners resources are available to begin this exploration process. the thing is, with a microcontroller platform, it is then possible to further explore this HIOX signaling via electronic LED displays... and yet again the format of the displays becomes an issue, for what is required versus what exists, and the level of complexity to do simplest, most manual transformations via writing code bit by bit to change 'graphics'. tutorial example: Controlling RGB Matrices with Arduino https://www.sparkfun.com/tutorials/201 so what this amounts to is a bounded realm of LED display technologies driven by custom-programmed microcontrollers that could potentially be used for rudimentary explorations of HIOX signaling as basic cryptographic research, in its potential versus incapacity to make any headway along these lines given personal, resource, and technology limits. so while for me this is all about proving ideas of 3-value and N-value logic via experimental demonstrations, it turns out not possible to pursue. and thus these words versus artifacts, a working signaling system in its more developed conception, where computation, mathesis, and signage is involved. even beyond a realm of software-based encryption. something else, beyond. thus for an LED matrix, hand coding each alphanumeric letter and number and their transformation is basically endless bureaucracy and total friction to such experimentation, and the size of the arrays is off (displays need odd number of pixels for centering of master symbol, and spacing of array of multiple symbols). and, also, LCD just is not as cool as LED in this realm, so really wanted to keep it in this semaphore context, versus that of a 'screen', more an external sign or transformable "electronic flag" mechanism. 8x8 RGB LED Matrix Display Module http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANmZZx8HnMc Two 8x8 RGB LED Matrix - Fire Effect (new version) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz_HT-FqEOE How to drive an led display matrix. http://www.best-microcontroller-projects.com/led-dot-matrix-display.html Adafruit RGB LED Matrix http://www.adafruit.com/category/63_100 http://www.rayslogic.com/propeller/programming/AdafruitRGB/AdafruitRGB.htm 24x16 RGB LED Matrix http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0E9o32j8EM so the thing is, if there was already software that mapped out letters and calculations to transform them or establish and 'compute' relations, then it could be plug and play exploration and things could go beyond talking about letters and numbers on a display-- except this is not possible in the given frameworks- and it scales up to larger store displays and mega displays likewise-- it is coded within a certain relation to language that removes the [sign] of its graphic information and instead each alphanumeric needs to be reconstructed individually as a graphic bitmap, seemingly, in order to start this process. language is not conceptualized in a way to allow it to be explored as a signal itself, only as a representation of signaling. thus everything is from scratch and the bigger you think, the more impossible it is to do because it is like trying to build a pyramid from individual pieces of sand. it is not a viable approach. and yet the potential is quite extraordinary, for instance if a 3D array of LED lights could model a letter 3-dimensionally within its matrix, and allow letters to be twisted or mirrored, if only software could allow for this, and displays were built around this functionality... thus, eventually, such novelties could also have a signaling dimension, conceptually, even if only as artwork that takes code and makes patterned permutations-- basically the same thing this device may be programmed to do, though with alphanumerics or its de|con-struction... LED Cube 8x8x8 running on an Arduino http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUcX41pokZY (in that, what if i want to spin the letters A and X and G at different speeds in a word, and then letters H and W vertically, while rotating the letter N) --- conceptual backgrounder --- so visiting the Walker Art Center about 30+ years ago, encountered paintings of Jasper Johns that were a 7-segment LED display (0-9 plus hex) in painted form, which got me thinking... and then years later at the same museum, artist Jenny Holzer had a mind-blowing exhibit of LED displays running streams of scrolling and blinking red illuminated text, statements and ideas, that tied into this fascination with language in its other functioning, as if conceptual data or running code. and the idea of programming language was involved with this idea of HIOX, to be able to create equations and algorithms to transform alphanumerics in a context of display. i just did not know you could not do it, that it was not modeled or conceived this way. yet the boundary kept me from exploring it any further, beyond serial writing of perspective, trapped in the code-limits, as i remain here. note the electronic context for linguistics... in that ideas of code and programming could exist outside the computer, firstly, and in a realm of signs and signage and their interplay in signaling systems, more as traditional data relay. also, the primacy of aesthetics in this, electromagnetic yet tangibly grounded in the world in a most familiar way, using read/write systems in various contexts (truisms in stone, LED signs) though also that there is a poetic dimension inherent in this approach, and likewise could exist within code and programming and signaling likewise... Jenny Holzer - artist info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Holzer Sounding the Alarm, in Words and Light (2009) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/arts/design/13holz.html Jenny Holzer: "Projection for Chicago" (amazing video of her work) http://blip.tv/art21-exclusive/jenny-holzer-projection-for-chicago-1701427 google image search: various examples of her LED signage https://www.google.com/search?q=jenny+holzer+led+signs&safe=off&client=fire… so the situation that exists at this/that point is that i myself can operate a 16 segment LED display via a Parallax microcontroller, yet cannot get beyond this limit. and then the options that exist for larger signage, towards the scale of displays that Jenny Holzer uses, is likewise limited by its conception or protection of language as a pre-defined graphic element that cannot be broken down into its constituent parts or elements (like individual segments of a 16 segment display) and instead forces these considerations into an enormous bitmap animation scenario, making electronic pointillism unto madness. so in terms of software-- it is all dumb, in terms of [signs] as the language elements exist as concepts- as if INVIOLABLE. meaning, beyond questioning. a rigid limit or assumption or threshold that locks-down interpretation and requires letters, words, and numbers be that and not some aspect of them. and thus a typo is only and ever an error, never an insight into the deeper structuring. nothing conceptual allowed about language as a metaphysical system of symbolic communication. nothing of numbers and their symbolism. nothing of signs in relation to calculation as this equates with establishing logic. mirroring, none of it. tools would need to be re-conceived and programmed this way. and so for awhile i investigated these signs and realized the limits involved, and would have attempted an art project to reinterpret the display yet do not have the programming skills needed to explore ideas beyond the existing context, and it would likely take significant programming effort to allow the type of HIOX exploration imagined, developing various approaches and techniques and routines for such dimensional transformation of language as code. the initial question begins with 3|E and its relation between number and letter as this relates to paradox and logic, and then moves far beyond this into calculations, and exploring the calculus of various set combinations and permutations. yet software tools and models do not exist to do this. though an issue like color display could be added, as with a traffic light, and further bring out relations amongst patterns embedded in a given linguistic and mathematic context... again, as this relates to signaling. ways of perceiving 'wave function' of data that collapses into one framework or another, based on superposition and observer relations. Electro E Programmable Tri-Color LED Sign Display 11.5 x 41 http://www.neon-das.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=LEDEM-4U4… M1000 Large Alphanumeric Display 2" to 4.5" http://www.vorne.com/led-displays-m1000.htm the graphic-based Vorne display (url directly above) seemed to have the most potential in terms of programmability, perhaps defining a letter as a graphic object that could then be flipped or turned, as an image, yet it seemed infeasible to pursue without the programming ability to shape the code which may be more difficult than an educational microcontroller in defining what happens or how, and reliant upon technical support that probably is bounded to words and sentences versus artistic or pure research, into display systems, for conceptual communication. so while Jenny Holzer is working at a wild scale within this (light-emitting diode) electronic display as an artistic medium, the medium itself in its technical configuration does not allow a questioning of the language that inhabits the display nor its [sign]=[sign] assumption, that limits what the language can say, bounded to a finite construct that while traditional is also linear and rigid, whereas stock market number displays could be constantly transforming or updating numbers or scheduling displays could change one city to another, and yet letters and words themselves have no such 'higher functionality' than being static objects, unrelated to anything else structurally or conceptually- yet linguistically this is a false perspective. they are highly related, letters and numbers and signs are connected via common structures and emerge out of them, such as an M and W or 3 and E, or all of these in a single instance. and yet that turning or rotation or flipping is off-limits in the display model-- yet it is where the code begins, and programming of other language interactions in calculus-like trans transformative relations. the thing is: this is a semaphore! display this on a wall in your apartment or home, program it for messaging, and point it out the window and you have a relay-based visual system for sharing data that can be encrypted within a shared key cipher system. not for nefarious purposes, potentially as artistic display of the beauty of alphanumerics, such as tessellation patterns that are based on these geometric dynamics, as well as typographic tessellations... (note: my research work preceded this) Hypnopaedia By Zuzana Licko http://www.emigre.com/EFfeature.php?di=98 in any case, a potential exists for structures and patterns of language and number, mathematics even, to be recontextualized via electronic displays and reconceptualized as language and in turn, cipher systems. in that the ~idea of code and programming could be different than existing approaches to mediating [signs] within a linear single perspective framework. it could be a situation involving /superposition/ within language, and 3-value and N-value logic, versus only binary interpretations; correct display versus alternative forms of communicative display. and this taken into an environment of ubiquitous commercial signage, networked 'electronic billboards' of a given ideological disposition to semiotics and fixed ideas about image-based POVs, versus breaking it down, investigating it as data, considering its potentials and dimensionality in terms of signaling, patterns, data, symbols, calculation, perception, perspective, limits, thresholds, boundary, skew, meaning, relativism, parallel observation, zoning, secrecy, infrastructure, covert communication, networks, literacy, translation, ciphers, etc. --- tangible examples --- so imagine you have an electronic display like the Vorne signage above and it can hold and display a bit string, that another observer can relate to. and they hold their phone up to the display and software evaluates it and outputs some transformed version based on its expansion and-or a shared key. else, that certain letters or numbers or patterns emerge from the noise based on an algorithm. or that it is infrared or UV and looked at a display in those frequencies reveals other data, say with a digital camera. and thus a QR-code like potential to convey information though abstracted or embedded in what appears to be or is a noisefield. else, it could be a sign on a house, and used as an encryption system to allow a courier to leave a message or open a e-commerce delivery portal and leave a package, via scanning data and verifying identity against matched network records. or, it could be data on a building, viewed as if by microwaves or laser miles distant, or telescope, whose encryption can be unlocked in a given perspective though not in others, via line of sight communications. in the sense the signaling can be changed and altered, it is as if a flag based signaling system of N-potential flags in an unknown library of a bounded infinity, more ocean than fishbowl, even for an 8x8 display, versus 3,000 by 300, etc. the code potential in this, the ability to program and explore alphanumeric and patterned structure, is extraordinary, perhaps even unprecedented as a communications medium, beyond or outside of the framework of a computer and into questions of signs and signage and symbols themselves. like in some cases the metaphysics of charcoal, pencils, and pens need to be worked-out in terms of language, before having a sense of what laser printing is really capable of and how it is different and yet extends other principles further along, yet remains connected to what preceded it in a shared realm of language. so too, electronic displays as signage ("Great White Way" lighting and advertising of electrification; ~Learning from Las Vegas analysis of signage infrastructure), that their may be more to it than the default interpretation inside computers, when formatted by binary ideology that has pretty much everything wrong, conceptually. what if the signage and cellphones were an encryption platform. what if signaling occurred between signage and vehicles and allowed zoned interactions with regard to information though also secrecy and security issues. what if such signage and display was a type of chalkboard for calculation or modeling of ideas or learning about logic or other conceptualization. what if it even connects with rituals, such as holiday lights or decorations and could exist as a subsystem of a dwelling, mediating an interior and exterior relation, threshold or boundary. in that it functions as a traffic light in some instances, an electronic relay of information in others, a house address in others, or electronic dropbox. this is infrastructure, tools, building, systems. yet it has a vital functional role matched into its aesthetics. it is not just a dumb display screen to transmit dumb data. it has deeper and more imaginative purpose. --- where its at today --- thus as stated nothing occurred to develop this HIOX approach into a signaling system. it would need to be collaborative and supported as basic research. manufacturers would likely have to be involved to potentially change circuitry to allow for new functionality even, in that this could be more an issue of computation than it is at present, where it is more that of display alone. and so the gap between the idea and the existing reality is that the tools are themselves limited in what can happen, and available techniques are bounded to only certain interpretations that are biased to particular tried-and-true display outputs. and so even a larger scale more capable electronic display is locked-down in its capacity to ask and explore these questions. and the pointillist condition establishes an impossible barrier that cannot be surpassed within the given framework, without conceiving of a better way to develop a prototype display, a proof-of-concept that demonstrates and can validate the approach via experiments open to peer-review and extension by involved others, as a new platform of pattern-based signaling. instead of the large LED display, the large electronic canvas needed for the scale of the inquiry (bit set at sentence or paragraph length, versus letters and word), its lack of computability then offers no benefit to a smaller and equally incapable mini 32 x 32 LED matrix, in that the problems are only compounded at the larger scale and remain daunting, infeasible, no-go. and yet -- it is the very same underlying concept taken back into the original 16 segment LED display (aka HIOX), that if combined in a larger array or display format, does allow this segment-based breakdown of the numbers and letters to occur and could be used in a realm of computation, just not at an integrated scale. consider this pinball LED display... Data East Dual 16 Digit Alphanumeric LED Display http://bayareaamusements.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Cod… this to me, in a context of bit sets and bit strings, has a computational potential built-into the display itself, given how the software processes the code, and how well the code can map into the various structures and retain readability, even though not effectively aligned due to vertical distance. those 32 digits each have a potential for at least 26 letters and 10 numerals, which makes it a multiset with 2-level potential of: [36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36] [36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36][36] this is far beyond trillions of set combinations and permutations. there are likely incomputable numbers here, not even considering the alphabet dimensions, in terms of probabilities. what this really is, in terms of N-value logic is an array of 32 wildcard variables that could be anything... [ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ] [ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ][ * ] and thus, in a larger consideration of display potential (not limited by size of the 'pixel' or bit), infinity upon infinity could be nested within these interset relations, one variable in relation to others, in various nonlinear patterns. and this could occur graphically, as if glyphs or symbols or various emergent proto-signage. whereas, for a digital, binary viewpoint, in 2-values, the same potential for display as literal number, could be entirely finite and bounded: [0][1][0][0][1][0][1][1][0][1][0][1][0][0][0][1] [1][0][0][1][0][1][1][0][1][0][1][0][0][0][1][0] and thus, once adding in 'neutral' or unknown (n) of 3-value logic into this fixed idea of binary language, strange dynamics and possibilities are opened up within these limited sign systems, and the processing becomes indeterminate and can be paused or begin to loop, remaining in an undecided or questioning state.... [0][1][0][0][1][0][n][1][0][1][0][1][0][n][0][1] [1][n][0][1][0][1][1][0][1][0][n][0][0][0][1][0] and then with N-value logic, the wildcards transform everything, and the one and zero absolutes are the exception, a contingency assumption, always looping to test against the model and its assessment, versus a forgone conclusion. and in this way, the signs of language and mathematics. --- Tenori-on --- in my explorations i discovered one tool that had the potential of a HIOX-based signaling system, the Yamaha Tenori-on electronic music instrument.... Tenori-on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenori-on TENORI-ON Product Demo Performance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGwDhKTrwU Yamaha website - software version http://usa.yamaha.com/products/musical-instruments/entertainment/tenori-on/ what intrigued me about this platform was that it was conceived as a visual instrument in addition to musical, so that the LEDs and the sequencing of sound were matched, and patterns could be programmed into the device and shared as a visual display. the fact that it is a sequencer is very important, in terms of looped permutation of data, if considering the display. and yet it remains in a linear time framework by default and limited capacity to explore anything related to HIOX beyond the given context, yet exists a potential tool likewise. such that it feasibly could be used for signaling, as a semaphore. if attaching it a radio-controlled plane or drone, it could send alphanumeric display messages via persistence of vision, spelling out data across the sky via electronic sky writing. or it could be held up at a distance and burst a message that is captured via video recording and spotting scope, and when the recording is played back, its message could be spelled out frame by frame or perhaps exists in an encrypted or hidden format, say UV or other LEDs that make it look inert and in a state of non-display, when instead transmitting information or data. to me this is a semaphore system. and its additional uniqueness was that it was designed to be connected at a distance to another Tenori-on via network connection, as if a telegraph, and the music on one device would appear on the other and each would be able to manipulate the common screen and light patterns in real-time. how amazing is that? amazing enough to discontinue develop the product unfortunately. it is perfect for music therapy at a distance, musical education, if it had more capacity for experimentation (versus being limited in what is allowed to occur, musically) and thus it was of limited use as an instrument for those who make music, too constrained in operation. and yet, idea-wise, it has tremendous potential as a platform for communication, whether musical or pattern based; and taken into the above context, signaling, code, programming, semaphore. tablet software is not the same idea. --- today --- thus, when writing emails about logic, it is trapped within this inescapable coded and programmed context of binary ideology. what can happen is only what is allowable or possible within the existing constraints and frameworks, and thus this description of the idea is more than can be done within the technology itself, as it is ideologically formatted. in terms of tool use. to enter into a cryptographic context, computation of bit sets and relaying signals would require developing new circuits based on 3-value and N-value logic, computer architectures that allow the code to exist and be processed as it exists, as information in a grounded model of contingent truth. perhaps even establishing a means for entanglement between such systems. until then, it seems description and representation within existing systems would be bounded to a prototype condition, showing the idea, conceptualizing it, rather than actualizing it. dim sum, banh mi, sashimi ℻

1 0

[paraCrypto] re: surreality 1.1
by brian carroll 29 Sep '13

29 Sep '13

// a few other random notes related to the original feedback... this is perhaps a more accurate model for everyday computer interactions, whereby the computer machinery may be designed to function against individuals because it has 'secret functioning' that is protected behind an inaccessible boundary to most... individual <==> dumb PC || A.I. =={secret data}==> surveillance in this way a false perspective could be established for the individual interacting with what appears to be a dumb system, while behind that /facade/ the game-master could have dual-use technology that is advanced yet unrecognized, that automatically monitors or queries data (in the sense of automated assembly line production of data mining, reconnaissance and organized pilfering) for the rogue setup/takedown operation, and yet such functioning could be hidden, a secret within the indecipherable chips themselves in their unknowns or proprietary, protected internal boundary (inversion of privacy to allow unconstrained criminality, in certain contexts, while ignoring or exploiting it in others). note: if the above relational diagram is broken due to arbitrary word-wrap, here it is broken down into parts: individual <==> dumb computer dumb computer || a.i. computer a.i. computer <--{crypto}--> surveillance --- on paracrypto environment --- perhaps an assumption of signal/noise modeling of crypto is a blank slate where programming and code creates structures and it is the interaction in these defined systems where 'the crypto' resides, that is, that the secrets are contained in the cryptographic communication and do not exist or reference something beyond the [signs], which would be a mistaken assumption. paracrypto seemingly is outside of this constraint or does not align in this way, seemingly. in that it is more like a Random Event Generator that begins to sense something emerging from the ~plenum of noise as a pattern or organization with what may otherwise be random background, as if disassociated potential. in this sense *signal* may emerge from noise in a paracrypto context, because the meaning already exists in the world as a pattern, whether or not coded into a given schema contained within a finite set of signs and algorithms. in fact, "the world" could be missing from the programming and code of cryptographic products which require 'drawing inside the lines' for that conventional approach to function, which may limit what world exists within the crypto to begin with- which is why, in terms of language-based communication it seems the more robust modeling of crypto occurs outside of hardware/software implementations, and is far more advanced in terms of intelligence applications as it relates to day to day networks and how things get down outside formal administrative channels, especially when compromised or corrupted. in that, the sudden appearance of a flower pot could signal meaning and provide direction where no computers operate or observe or analyze though it could be implicitly known and understood by certain observers of the shared key, what it signifies. in this way, normal everyday people are dealing with already established cryptosystems as a basis for hidden or secret communication which may remain unsaid or unspoken or unacknowledged, yet could only appear only in the subconscious or unconscious of others. if a person sees the flower pot and understands the correlation, there is no need for a computing infrastructure, digital keys and signatures, binary data streams of code, portable computers and pattern-recognition systems to verify what is observed and match this against a central database model. unless of course that is what is required for lack of capacity to process such information naturally, or that systems are in place for certain populations to point-and-shoot their phones at every passer by for diagnostics, to monitor and thus assess their own perspective of what they are not-seeing-themselves as mediated by technology and remote interpretation, to then validate the event and provide a viewpoint, another data point to the empirical model to calculate and reference experience. in that case 'smart technology' and 'dumb people' and in the other, dumb technology and intelligent people. the books: Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino and Ways of Seeing by John Berger, offer a way of considering the para- or coexisting parallel apsects of observation, as viewpoint may be shifted based on what framework is referenced and navigated within. in that different people see different things. people of different backgrounds or cultures. the works of Edward T. Hall focus on these questions of relation. i tend to think it inherently involves the issue of /perspective/ and especially the role of boundaries or limits that define what is and what cannot be observed. (note: role of research of sociologists, archaeologists, entomologists, zoologists, cultural anthropologists e.g. going to village to decipher customs, learn language, etc. as this applies to codes operating outside the defining crypto parameters yet functions similarly yet far beyond, potentially in terms of what is secured and-or private.) thus to 'really see' you have to deal with errors in seeing within the self, firstly. make altitude adjustments, corrections, etc. else observation could be self-limited to a finite viewpoint that begins and ends with the self as a solitary private individual and seeks to relate everything that exists to the terms of the person, as if at the center, infallible. in this way a person may be considered in terms of an antenna. in that it involves issues of fundamental being and awareness, as it relates to grounding or short-circuiting, and what signals and frequencies can be accessed given its configuration. so if malfunctioning, perhaps only few things are transmitted or received and perhaps much of it is noise-based or incoherent. whereas if well aligned, well grounded, and well adjusted, clarity could result in transmissions and reception of signaling. this as it relates to literacy and illiteracy. people utilizing their bandwidth for regressive, backwards activity versus others whose work taps into cosmic channels of shared truth, finding their place within its masterplan. clarity versus confusion. deep meaning versus triviality. coherence versus decoherence. and perhaps signal/noise ratios and embodiment, how much does the mental/physical correspond within a life, or is it short circuited and shut off for entire populations, trapped in bodies without governing ability over its destiny. the issue of tuning, as it relates to logic. what you tune into as data. as this corresponds with truth or pseudo-truth or falsity. and then the active and passive channels, where the data is relayed within a context of self- what dimensions are functioning within a given person (as antenna) versus another, and how do they relate or what are the shared and unshared dynamics between them- as this relates to limits, boundaries, 'shared awareness', logic, and truth. though especially, of ideology versus ideas. passive thought versus active questioning, which can be the difference between faith-based ~theorization and feedback-based hypotheses, requiring logical foundation for reasoning ideas. person 1 <===> person 2 antenna 1 <===> antenna 2 so paracrypto functions in this realm by default of nature, at least for humans and animals, in terms of consciousness and shared awareness. 'truth' does not reside within a being and instead is referenced or mapped into the surrounding world. the truth of a table is not its calculation in the brain corresponding to a sign [table], because it must be verified externally in its existence to validate this truth, the sign maps into the world where it finds its grounding, closing the circuit of signification. whereas disembodied truth or signage freed of this need for external evaluation or proof, can be whatever it is believed to be irrespective of other facts outside a given personal framework of relativism. and this is the thought-killer, the nasty bug that replaces thinking with binary processing, making a fractional truth into 'whole truth' and ignoring any external truth or ability to falsify the viewpoint. perhaps in some way this is a countermeasure equivalent to jamming an antenna to protect another signal. very easy to move into extra-sensory perception or astral projection or remote viewing in this electromagnetic antenna context, if the truth of information is 'shared' by default and involves referencing a shared sensory domain where the truth of information could reside in the noisefield, as patterns. and that perhaps these /forms/ or hidden yet emergent molecules - as ideas and concepts and connections and correlations - are the real codebase of humanity and nature, yet it remains encrypted due to an incapacity to engage this realm in an insufficient, non-electromagnetic modeling of existence, that binary computing instead seeks to define and determine, becoming the future. so paracrypto relations could exist in ubiquitous and meaningful ways, except have no place within the domain of computation except for monitoring and controlling and constraining its development, to keep the non-electromagnetic false worldview in tact and in power. in other words "crypto" and code and programming for computers does not have the capacity to deal with this realm, and by comparison computing languages -are- [signage] detached from actual physical reality, fundamentally ungrounded and unreliant on observable truth outside their finite and skewed boundaries. this is why a programming language based on 'circuits', from the individual to nature, to concepts and ideas, would be closest that of nature and the brain and mind itself, and developing this from N-value logic, so that "programming" a device is no different than "people thinking" or logically reasoning via hypothesis, trial and error, feedback, and empirical evaluation against a universal model based in grounded truth (1). anything else tends towards absolute falsity, the further it computes partial truth against partial truth in a binary framework, where a false and uncorrected absolutist foundation and error-reliant structures hold up the fantasy as a schizophrenic state of awareness. --- analogy --- the frame of view, or perspective of a given observer can be considered in terms of a literal picture frame that defines what is inside from what is outside the captured view, as this relates to a boundary condition. ...|v|... if a digital camera is used to take a photograph -- as a basis and corollary for observation -- a boundary condition is delineated and demarcated (outside...|inside|...outside) and in this way, the realm that is captured (v) can be detached from its surroundings, as a finite instance, or still be tied into it via its inherent connectivity outside or beyond the arbitrary boundary or view of the whole. thus a partial view of the cosmos is not the cosmos in its entirety. yet, oftentimes such infintesimal viewpoints can replace the larger realm of observation, and stand-in for this universal view by default of binary observation and 'sharing of viewpoint'. what is true is |v| and nothing else is true, as long as everything outside the frame is ignored, whether true or not, and anything inside the frame is considered true, by default of some aspect of it being true, yet allowing errors to compensate as truth, because they hold up the perspective of a given distorted, ungrounded observer. this is the basic model of binary computers, where the cosmos is on the outside, and only what fits into the tiny box is allowed 'reality' in the false perspective, and thus everything is made to serve that distorted, error-reliant viewpoint in order to be allowed in a realm of 'shared perspective' in the "common programmatic language", where [signs] stand-in for truth, and become their own self-signification (?), such that [sign]=[sign] is the pattern match, in language, versus in evaluation of ideas themselves or the truth they reference. it has become detached, "virtual", an issue of _processing of data streams, reasoning turned into this via binary short-cuts for rote call & response as if intelligence versus "the speed of smartness" which can relay disembodied facts into a context of ever larger prime discoveries, as if by default of observation: true. because it is observed and believed true, and corresponds with the accepted framework that sees no error in itself, because it essentially holds the position of infallibility via god-status. paracrypto ...|crypto|... paracrypto likewise for cryptographic hardware/software based on computers and their programmatic finite modeling of reality, devoid of actual grounding in external truth outside the context of [signs], which tokenize truth into something arbitrary and malleable-- a fundamental corruption of the highest and lowest order. it simply must be deception. as these same critical systems of intelligence always have and always will operate in the larger realm of language, mapped into the cosmic context, not limited by the finite frames of a given viewpoint or framework that seeks to stop or constrict what can be communicated. circuits ...|bits|... circuits the universe is a bit only in the sense that truth and falsity can correspond with a 1/0 state computationally- it could be a simulation and presented digitally, yet it is an emulation and exists in a larger context that is not so defined or limited or impoverished in meaning. the 'bit' is a false perspective of experience. it is of a false nature and detached from actual experience, unless warped and unimaginative. certainly 'ideas' can be processed as bits, yet they are not only this nor is this their height or greatest capacity. in so far as ideas are 'true' and map into reality, they tend towards 1, yet remain bounded and contingent. insofar as they are false, they tend towards zero. yet if assuming all ideas could be grounded in truth, it is in their modeling and observation this way that their structures (as molecules) would be constructed and anchored to the shared foundation of universal truth (1) yet this does not equate with a digital worldview or its verification. it makes no sense in the larger context of the cosmos and in this reductionist approach disallows consideration of the actual nature of connection within minds and environments, in terms of shared truth, beyond that of the ideological. circuits ...|circuits|... circuits a computer architecture that is based on circuits would not reinforce a boundary and twist and warp things to fit inside its false modeling, and declare it 'universal truth', and instead would be able to move beyond the boundary via interconnectivity within structures of truth that can be mapped beyond a given observational boundary, the weaving together of various empirical views of grounded observers... and this accesses the ancient geometrical approach, of the self with self, self with another, and others, which moves from a point to a line, to a triangle, to a square, and onward to an atmospheric whole, as ideas and events and observations align in a shared framework of truth. ... |v1| |v2| |v3|...|v^n| ... wherein ultimately the correlated observation can tend towards N-dimensional observation of events and extend into infinities that ungrounded relativism does not allow as its 'wholeness' is dependent on protecting skew within a given boundary and equating it with absolute truth because it is shared, validated by others, as a false consciousness and this could be exploited, where the boundary condition it provides is cover for deception which exploits this, keeps ideas trapped in a false worldview, while other things are happening outside this framework yet cannot be accessed or identified inside of it, due to the enforced limits and constraints on observation. thus, those who pursue the truth of ideas can easily be deemed insane, and given disorienting pills, put into psychiatric hospitals, and forced to suicide, to keep the political agenda secure, secret. the potential then of shared observation, is that if humans were combined into a single observer, then: ... |humans^N] ... and that a computer that can 'reason' like a person, in N-value considerations of circuits, would then not be unnaturally bounded and set apart from nature, where only some truth is allowed, that which can be accommodated within the technological framework and its errant ideology. humans ...|antihumans|... humans in terms of paracrypto, human communication that is secret if not secure could exist in dimensions outside the limiting framework of those who censor and edit-out truth from their skewed worldviews and seek to create technology to reinforce this false view, to maintain control over the illusion. a computer that breaks this observational dictate then would provide tools for humans who are on the outside of technology today, not being served by it, and would allow technology to be in service to humans and nature and not their enemy in a win-lose relationship. insofar as this truth cannot be acknowledged or identified, it could function as extra-dimensions that can be referenced while also not being relayed in explicit terms understandable by the hidden surveillers, or their computers. if the code is unable to be deciphered accurately or put together as a whole. instead it would develop as a noisefield. more and more noise. and this likewise could be an aspect of the surrealism it involves. for those on the inside, it may appear only warped or distorted or skewed or false via inaccuracy or error-rate in [sign]=[sign] pattern matched relations, breaking this interpretative framework, limiting its resolution via the boundary, inverting the false-perspective with another that actually involves a siege, as truth surrounds and further and further constricts the finite, false point of view. it is also an issue of limited numbers of observers, and their incapacity to accurately 'process' or accurately interpret such data, at speed, previous and in addition to the incapacity of similar computer modeling to ~rationalize the irrational data into a coherent framework, without forcing and amplifying skew, distortion, warping, and errors based on false assumptions and lies-- to the absolute extreme. the primary idea again is there is a -gap- between the [model] & [reality]. and in certain conditions this is where paracrypto occurs, or so it is proposed. such that an antihuman agenda set into binary computing regime cannot parse or process data outside this framework without forcing it back into its biased logical structuring, which only tenatively grounds via pseudo-truth. and that is a security flaw and no secret anymore. the difference with a human model would be that it establishes and serves this connection with reality as closely as possible, that it must be aligned accurately as that is the basis for its accountings, its verification, validation as observation. whereas for ungrounded relativism, it is the separation from larger reality that presupposes 'universality' and seeks to replace it, rather than serve the larger truth- it is to serve that which is contained as if equated with this, a substitute worldview and illusion based on a shared lie. --- other notes --- self as antenna, yet also machines as antennas and their dimensional aspects. this in terms of logic and relations, such that, for example: N-value observer <---> N-value machine N-value observer <---> binary machine what 'shared awareness' is possible or not, based on the boundary of observation and its reliance on truth or pseudo-truth. to recontextualize this question in terms of ~being and A.I. then could allow a shared circuit-based code and programming language to have advanced 'chess' communications based in 'shared reasoning' beyond the limiting framework of binary ideology, interfacing with a computer such that: individual <-- N-value reasoning ---> A.I. machine if verifiable-yet-contingent truth were the basis for this relation, then cryptography could instead involve a defense of truth at the base of this model, where error-correction and oversight could occur to compare against false-modeling or fake-ideas or agendas, potentially. in that, a traditional route would appear to view security as based on breaking a model so to make it more secure-- yet to do this with 'truth' itself, would be to degrade a conceptual model from truth to pseudo-truth, in order to 'secure it' within greater falsity, making it less secure and allowing for errors that would otherwise not be allowed. thus the traditional approach could be backwards in a circuit-based context, though perhaps an extra diagnostic layer or protocol would exist that is crypto-based in terms of security, to validate truth against its modeling and make sure it cannot be tampered with or that there is a secure realm that monitors itself, at least in such a framework. seemingly opposite of computers today. --- on errored observation --- i have various kinds of brain blips and malfunctioning of nervous system and sometimes will look at text and see the wrong words or have my brain substitute other words automatically or misspell yet when i read it i sometimes cannot see the error due to processing. there can be an aspect of satire involved in this, as misinterpretation sometimes allows a surreal parallel interpretation, much like the satire of the Onion news articles and headlines with other, many times more real, events. many occasions especially when fatigued will read a sentence in error, and this a [world] will become multiset and reframe a sentence or paragraph, relation or idea, as a result. i wonder if there is a way to annotate this as an experience, such that these moments of accidental insight could be captured or shared. almost attempted to do this by détourning coderman's reply with this alteration: key exchange, just synchronized symmetric cigars and readers digests) > in that a misreading or altered reading can change the context and meaning of the original statement, as this relates to the interpretive aspect of evaluation in its fractal and multidimensional (if noise-based subconscious connection to patterns, as they may exist betwixt-and-between various frameworks of truth). original: was: key exchange, just synchronized symmetric [ciphers] and [digests]) > in the first instance, a skewed eyeball capture for some reason warped cipher into cigar, adn then a different approach evaluation 'digest' in a larger iconic context, in that given the observer you ask about locating the digest, may respond in crypto computer terms or from another era, of a magazine on the coffee table by the television. this is the reality of language in its complexity and subtltey that goes unmapped by the assumption that it is neither active nor relavant in a binary ideological framework and 'shared awareness' which is assumed by default correct and finite, contained in the frame it determines. whereas for other observers it could extend beyond this, into elsewhere, which is where paracrypto may better be said to exist, in this bit set interaction, within and between and beyond the [signage] that makes up the code, yet also validates and invalidates its premise in terms of inherent security or secrecy in the realm of ideas and concepts, assigned and referenced in a realm as technical infrastructure, yet in error and inaccuracy as it relates to the larger environment which is also encrypted, also communicating; computer hardware and software the subset here, potentially even, compared with the code of nature and secured subsystems for transmitting data that remains unobserved on other levels. if actually dealing in realism versus forcing the false perspective and thus the surrealism is all there is to make sense of the larger context as the code is ungrounded as observation. malmodeling. incomplete, infinitely so. ☳

1 0

[paraCrypto] ex.errata
by brian carroll 28 Sep '13

28 Sep '13

for crypto model... individual <--- [x] ----> individual where x is medium, such as one-time pad or computers, whereby: individual <--- machine --{crypto}-- machine ---> individual to a potential artificial intelligence context of machine borne crypto... A.I. machine <--- {crypto} ---> A.I. machine computers themselves developing secrets, privacy, securing POV. individual <--- A.I. machine <--{crypto}--> hidden attacker perhaps zoning humans out of machines, parasite/host relations x0

1 0

[paraCrypto] re: surreality
by brian carroll 28 Sep '13

28 Sep '13

fascinating Tomas, well said and it captures what is hard to describe otherwise in its wide-ranging dynamics, co-existing with yet seemingly outside of existing crypto conceptualization in terms of hardware and software systems. i was thinking of a future cryptographic exchange system in terms of a MMORPG though your ideas made me reconsider the present in this framework which provides an interesting corollaries in terms of a more realistic context for cryptology in its known metaphysical dynamics -- the possibilities of advanced technologies that can read brain waves or tap optic nerves and how these figure into realistic questions of securing and transmitting data. in this sense, the world could be viewed in terms of a game, as you state, and of a game-master which could define a security situation for those inside. this environment could be considered a 'world' then, with the game-master having god status or root access, whereas the chmod settings of various players or other hierarchical access could limit or allow access to game data and control over its environment. seemingly, those most aligned with the game-master (and their god-status) could have more priveleges or support the game framework, while others may seek to function beyond it yet remain trapped inside, where the rules are too limiting to change the rigged outcome. consider then 'cryptographic tools' in such a closed environment, where the game-master has total control over the crypto and can read anything encrypted though this is not known to other players or is assumed benign, whereby omniscient-like awareness exists or is even shared by a certain group within the game which could benefit from the secrets supposedly hidden within the crypto, while other less connected players may naively assume there is security and secrecy and be taken down as a result of this. in that, perhaps the 'god' is fake and has a selfish or cruel and has an evil agenda and is trying to destroy those not aligned with their (truly hidden) agenda, because it is out of the boundary of available or allowed perception. and thus people in the game could be cultivated into a realm of stupidity, illiteracy, and ignorance by the game-master while those aligned with this ideology would benefit the most and function against other players, perhaps with the goal of killing all of them off so to win the game, and world. the big tell or discovery would be that the 'game-master' who has god-status is not allied with truth, and instead bases all their power on manipulations via lies and cheating and corrupting events and causing pain, injury, and suffering to gain control and guide things for the worse, for the human players. and thus when challenged, this agenda becomes clear in ignoring truth, dismantling systems of accounting and feedback, and replacing it with an ideology behavior-based belief system that is onesided to a partial viewpoint that serves the devolved condition as if ideal. thus "god" in this scenario would be functioning against higher truth, and whatever truth would function in this domain would defer to 'lower truth' or partial truth of the ideology of the game-master and cohorts. 'official crypto' then, saying it is to serve and protect freedom could instead be meant to prevent and exploit it for a hidden agenda functioning against populations, only to benefit the group aligned with the game-master, and there could be a 'religious basis' in that 'true belief' or assumption of correctness could equate with absolute truth (T), even while the partial views could tend towards total falsity when accounted for beyond the warped framework (pT=>0). and thus reasoning would not be possible because 'truth' would be denied by binary onesidedness and a correct view chosen based on hierarchical privilege, which could rule institutions and society within the game. what para-crypto potentially defines or suggests is that 'other crypto' could exist beyond the logical or observational boundary of the game-master and minions, such that data could be transferred between humans both in-world and beyond the game-world barrier, without being subverted by 'game-master' designed cryptographic systems which are inherently corrupted and a victim of 'partial omniscient' which serves itself as its goal, and thus 'validated truth' must benefit the game-master or else it is wrong, false, and threatens control over unified perception of what amounts to evil dictatorial control over the shared ~game environment. [note: this fits very well with a view of the earth being taken over and exploited by a private, limited, evil agenda, whereby the leader assumes a position of 'god' yet whose omniscience is limited only to the game-world under their control. much like the devil masquerading as god yet not recognizing or allowing truth beyond their own pov.] for me this could be interpreted in either traditional terms of theology, where it has relevance, as it relates to geopolitics and security and secret agendas today, even, though further- it could involve issues of simulation atop this, whereby a Matrix-like environment could exist, and the game-master could have computational control over events in this world and thus also have omniscient awareness - yet which is biased and self-serving, warped by a twisted agenda which seeks to subvert human development, etc. either way- omniscience and cryptography should be the default scenario for considering issues of security, secrecy, privacy, and rights today. anything else is just using a corrupted framework that is essentially 'anti' by default of ignoring such a complex, SCIFI environment in terms of advanced technology and tools available and how data and ideas are functioning in an electromagnetic (and beyond) realm, which remains unaccounted for in the society, within education, and peer communications. thus illiteracy. for instance, it could be metaphysics of higher dimensionality that the game-master is allowed to access 'thoughts' before encrypting them, and then alter tools to access anything that is encrypted. how do you deal with secret communication in a context like this? the only security or secrecy seemingly possible would be that which is outside the threshold of observation for the game-master and in-game spies who are monitoring everything. and thus, their ideology is the programming and contains errors and corrupt code that creates a gap or distance between what is real and actual (truth) and what they believe exists, (partial truth). pT <={x}=> T if some observers observation of truth is bounded and more limited than another, even if operating in higher dimensionality, say 'aliens' are game-master minions, (obs.1), it is still possible for humans of lower status (obs.2) in the game-world hierarchy to observe and function within a truth that is beyond their awareness or observance, including the 'false god' of the game, who seeks to control and limit this interpretation of truth to only a particular version of truth, reliant on skew, bias, warping, distortion, normalizing this. 0 ---> pT.1 ---> pT.2 ---> 1 such that, 0 <--- 'god' <--- pT.1 <---> pT.2 ==> 1 and this could become a context of the human and antihuman agenda, as it relates to truth... 0 <--- 'fake-god' <--- antihumans <---> humans ---> 1 in this way, commercial and retail cryptography that is subverted and used against constitutional rights and freedoms via the corrupted state could, in its subversion, be used for the power politics and game-management of the game-master (or dictator) whose partial and finite truth, unchecked relativism, would tend towards zero or nothingness, death and shared 'false consciousness' as it relates to an ideological framework that becomes the common state structure and basis for relation. and humans could be confused into serving this agenda, or have their data pilfered by surveillance, to support and extend it via its exploitation. whereas humans may seek to serve truth (1) and in doing so, life and all that is true in its integrity and purpose, and yet attempting to communicate securely or convey truth beyond the allowed boundary, could make these individuals or groups into the enemy of the existing environment. off-the-shelf crypto use could tend towards zero and not one, by default of its hidden agenda, and could support the tyranny over the population rather than its liberation. note: the human context for omniscience would be knowing all that is true in its empirical wholeness, and thus absolute knowing (1), which would involve access to all events and all sensors and circuitry, including spiders eyes and birds ears. not just technology and not lacking in understanding of its truth -- whereas the false-god would be in error in their interpretation due to not having observation grounded in absolute truth for their biased reasoning. in a doubled condition then, with backdoors yet perhaps secret hidden 'other code', the same crypto product could co-exist at either end of this entire range, that which has the compromised code sending pilfered encrypted information onward to the dictator and crew ("these are the secrets!") whereas other code could exist beyond or outside this boundary at the same time, and not be compromised and thus remain hidden or secret and in service to shared, higher truth. the lack of logical accounting for truth then would have that kind of crypto tending towards falsity (0) in terms of its groundedness, as accurate empirical observation and instead could be feeding a false perspective or viewpoint or sustaining a 'virtual world' for the dictator to believe they are actually in charge and not being gamed. whereas a shared observance of empirical truth, error-corrected- removed of bias, warping, skew, distortion, would enable grounded circuitry between people and nature, even while trapped within a game world that could be functioning against them and their existence. in such a way, 'crypto' as an idea would be important to review for its substance in terms of logic and its accounting in truth or reliance on partial truth and thus the errors that allow falsity to become a foundation and structure for relations and shared interactions, including those most secret, private, or in need of protection against enemies. human cryptographic products that function beyond the observational and reasoning limits of the game-master ('god'-status and pT.1) in a realm of greater truth (towards 1) then are afforded their first security by being hidden by the boundary or threshold that cannot be observed by those unable to consider the parameters of reality it exists within; such as paradox that is 'undecided' and does not allow forced bias to attain "absolute truth" which is a false view and actually tends towards absolute falsity the more and more it is relied upon in error, especially empirically, as a total shared viewpoint. in this way, at some point, 3-value and N-value logic and truth observed based upon this framework of logical reasoning then establishes a common basis for shared observation, an empirical perspective of 'many into one', leveraging panoptics and removing the errors by 'bugs and eyeballs' potential, the core methodology required to ground views of a shared human identity into a coherent, accurate, multifaceted awareness. thus [human identity] as a set tends towards a certain kind of consciousness if it is grounded in truth (1) and reasons towards it, whereas those who do not do this (antihumans) have a different consciousness and purpose, which relies upon and serves falsity (0) in terms of the absolute context, beyond the game-world itself. in that it could be a simulation of earth or earth itself, and while it or certain dimensions of existence could be under such hostile control - there evidence that certain truth is not allowed or is denied establishes that threshold where truth is unshared, people are unlike one another, and serve different agendas. and thus what is natural and known for humans may not be conceptualized or comprehended the same by outside observers of a mindset that favors a given interpretation that may be flawed or distorted, and in forcing data and observation into that framework, creates an ideological boundary, an inside framework that humans are outside of. much like computer systems today that serve an agenda apart from human development, people serving machines and base motivations of exploitation and enslavement. assuming that many believe this is the shared and correct framework, and the issue of compliance is the 'error-checking' routine, a false relation could be established and yet in its differance, allow a secondary or parallel realm of interaction, the unstated interconnectivity of humans, to exist yet beyond the known threshold, as voiced or actively sensed in game-god parameters. it is all about signs, eventually, identity and language and perception as these ground to truth via logic, or exist in an ungrounded unstable condition, which is where the animal training aspect of society develops around dictators, forcing compliance via pain and brutality, as a way of having power determine what is true, or 'highest truth' (0). as you mention, chaos and magic, and this could coexist in both realms as well, as metaphysical code. hidden hand interactions. accidents, good fortune, injury. death. and thus 'code' and 'programming' and 'crypto' exist in this context and likewise could serve forces of evil (0) where shared lies function as if universal truth, or be aligned with truth (1). and this dualism could be institutionalized, much like da Vinci Code dark/light dynamics at every turn as the forces move out of balance and return to equilibrium.. so the binary logic, in its onesidedness and ungrounded error-reliant ideological state, is essentially a broken cypher system, in that both as a concept and idea it is flawed and even false in modeling events accurately in that too-simple and too-easy framework. the crypto reliant upon its is weak because the ideas they are built upon are weak, not only weak- they are corrupt. false assumptions, error-reliant, and function in a realm of 'true belief' detached from external accounting, even beyond falsifiability. this is not only 'bad security' or a realm of false secrets (in more ways than backdooring equipment- the ideas are backdoored!) -- it is unreal, a false perspective as 'shared reality'. that is what the game-master cannot acknowledge because it is the worldview of their control over their minions and 'reasoning' needed to sustain their stolen world empire. so it is proposed that use of 3-value and N-value logic by default functions beyond the capacity of these people to correlate into their antihuman observational framework and modeling because it does not parse into the binary warped self-serving ideological agenda and instead appears /irrational/ and arbitrary and is a chaotic dynamic that instead of reinforcing the binary belief and shared observation, fragments it and destabilizes it and continually recenters via non-compliance to the 'finite reasoning' of the false POV. in this way, what occurs in these extra-dimensional realms as observation could inherently remain hidden or secret or have some level of security in that it cannot be easily accessed or understood as it exists, beyond the ideological framework and its formatting of meaning to fit into its partial, constrained viewpoint of events. and thus 'crypto' could exist in this condition, in which there is a gap in observation or a boundary or threshold condition, which cannot be accurately accounted for in the given terms. the big issue of 'understandability' and its untethering from false- and controlling- limitations and constraint (thus issue of freedom) then allows "ideas" and truth to exist beyond the realm of the false viewpoint controlled by the game-master slash false-god and their minions who enforce and extend and develop the status quo. so here is the next aspect you introduce- the computer... what if the world either was a simulation and run by a computer that enabled a partial yet flawed omniscience so that god-status had an uncanny ability to surveil those in-game, or that the game-master relied upon a computer for surveillance of humans to manage the game world and retain control over populations by being able to predict or control events, say having the ability to shape peoples destiny, having the power to manipulate time & space, etc. this is right out of Lewis Mumford Myth of the Machine, of a godless computer at the heart of the MEGAMACHINE, the state as an automated feedback-based machine that is set against human values and ultimately functioning against humanity. and guess what its greatest weakness is-- it is all binary! thus entire classes of people who are in service to the machinery, taking on its values, serving its pseudo-truth (tending towards 0) and "believing" that things really are absolute yes/no for each & every observation. how absolutely fucking insane and - insanely stupid. unthinkably stupid. impossibly ignorant. it simply must be a setup, a conspiracy. it is fundamentally unnatural. and yet the computer may have space-time and omniscience to a degree of the binary ideologist and could blacklist or control events and disenfranchise entire peoples and enslave humanity all the while nothing discussing this because it is beyond the boundary of communication for these events -- electromagnetism is not even in a historical context within scholarship of technological or social events (the last 300 years of electrification even), to provide observational grounding for these 'digital' ideological events. instead they are just believed wholesale by the populations - as the NEW RELIGION brought about be technocrats with a hidden agenda. crypto-politics, yet backdoored from the beginning, where: pT(T), such that: 0 <--- pT (T-->1) whereby 1 (0 <--- pT (T)) if you consider 'infinity' in this bounded context: partial-truth (infinite truth), then something is seeking to limit the limitlessness and that is how it gains its power, much like a hydro-event where pressure from a waterfall is harnessed via turbines that are forced to rotate and do work and this 'natural energy' can provide power. in this way: antihuman (humanity) yet this is a subset(set) relation, upside-down, and essentially equates with: 0(1) and thus in terms of dueling logics, whether machine or human- or other-processing... binary (N-value) or 2-value (3-value) &or 2-value (N-value) the important thing to distinguish in terms of 'reality' of this modeling is that both sets have '1' for a value, such that everything modeled as 'true' would relate to 1-value which is 'truth', though for binary this is the only choice and it is assumed ABSOLUTE, via ideology. it is a precondition for the worldview. and nothing is this simple, to start with. it is to theorize truth from the first to the last calculation and never question or suspend judgement-- everything must be aligned with a deterministic evaluation of absolute truth that is detached from actual accounting in truth, via logic that corrects for errors --or-- can be falsified. this cannot be. it is tautology taken to the extreme: dictating truth. a normalized condition then is: false-truth (truth), or false-truth (N-observations), which then must be aligned with its structures and frameworks- as with crypto equipment and its mathematics that may likewise be 'faith-based' in terms of trust systems, and thus tend towards falsity by default of their incapacity to account for greater truth beyond the observational limits established and sustained in their relation. which is why enforced illiteracy is so important to this 'covert' takeover or global terror coup. it secures the false view, within the false dynamics, and everything relies upon strengthening and propping up the false system and prioritizing its values and functioning. truth is the enemy here, it should be obvious. any error correction or feedback that threatens the goals and agenda and self-serving viewpoint of the populism (vote) it involves. and it is ~feeling based, as belief, if it feels bad it is wrong. wrong thoughts and bad thoughts that hurt these idiots, make them feel unsafe, less powerful, privileged or superior. it relates also to supercomputing and the Deep Blue chess match is of this paradigmatic change in relations between limits of 'human reasoning' and that of computational machines, especially binary-based AI. the supercomputer or even networked supercomputers have speed of thought and action, and accuracy and depth, to call upon, well beyond the capacity of any encyclopedic human. i have never related to chess in its game play, due to my own processing limits, though understand the rules of the game. so i tried out a computer chess game and was immediately beaten again and again by what amounts to very low computer processing power, what amounts to a microchip or microcontroller with game instructions versus peak performance of global computing capacity. and what it indicated to me, loss after loss, is that the game is solved at its expert level and if it was feasible or possible, a chess computer could take a game and be a million moves ahead, potentially, than a individual's 5 moves or 50 moves. and it could probably calculate these in the same amount of time, though perhaps far more, in the realm of trillions of calculations as a start, by comparison to a human being. individual <---> individual machine <---> individual machine <---> machine so people still play chess against one another, as they may also send crypto messages sans software/hardware equipment. and likewise, individuals can play chess against a machine, a chess computer or chess program, and as corollary, crypto between people and machines, whether having crypto created or challenged and deciphered this way, perhaps where AI computers create their own crypto algorithms someday that humans cannot crack and thus 'machines have secrets' and a 'hidden private truth', much like HAL. and then there is an issue of machines 'playing chess' against one another, state computers functioning against other state computers, and so on. and what i realized in my perpetual defeat by the chess computer was that the traditional rules of chess favor a binary, serial mindset and thus are easily resolved by the chess computer, and thus there is a ~finiteness or controlled-realm the interactions are happening within, which can be accurately modeled and improved heuristically, via looped evaluation and feedback to refine or adjust the model. yet each choice is quite minimal, the realm of 'infinity' is not readily at work, and with each move, the speed of calculation is further and further able to refine and project a winning scenario -- and whatever might happen or may occur would be because of a gap or ambiguity where the boundary remains 'unknown' or neutral or may even be perceived as false by the machine. that would be the opening for the human, to do something unexpected for beyond the known interpretation and yet upon doing so, the machine learns and that option like others becomes closed down immediately, so it is no longer available, if it can be accurately incorporated into the existing game model and framework; ie grounded. decades ago i envisioned an electromagnetic chess set with electric power plant (king) and skyscraper (queen), satellite dishes (rooks), transmission pylons (knights), radio and TV broadcast towers (bishops), and electrical distribution pole streetlights (pawns). the board itself consisted of wooden cubes where each side was a different color, as an informational terrain, green for grass, black for oil, blue for ocean, that could be randomly setup or changed during the game to reprogram interaction based on new rules. and similar to this idea, if suddenly a black square cannot be moved on or provides a double-move or special quality, it changes the probabilities involved in game play into a more multilinear or nonlinear framework, where [square] could become [6 squares] potentially, with new additional moves or characteristics based on each. and this in turn would effect 'processing' of the event by a computer, where such ~variables could tip the scales in humans favor, in that a square color could be changed mid-game and pivot what is occurring into another perspective, thus adding more unknowns though also unlocking what could amount to a dead game, on a conceptual level, in terms of serial logic that limits its potential as a multidimensional game. oftentimes intelligence compared to multidimensional chess, even. so too with a godless network of supercomputers that stand-in for 'shared awareness' and seek to determine it, within their finite unbounded modeling in a false framework. if the game-board they evaluate is already "known" then it is a serial calculation that is snap-to-fit and categorization figures itself out and allows prime-number-ideologies to extend themselves further and further on ungrounded and uncorrected assumptions, and yet function as 'the sign' of truth. computer output, resolution in binary terms. these same 'networked chess computers' are thusly biased, and have warped skewed distorted error-reliant code and programming that determines their output and how they evaluate input and search and categorize- and this is used to legimate tyranny, as B=B stands in for A, whereby pT = 1, yet in its limited view tends to 0, nothingness. when these machines are evaluating and censusing humanity, especially in antihuman frames of reference, such that: sign=inaccurate is 'good', if it serves the ideology; then correlating and corresponding input and output can "prove" the bias as a matched pattern, albeit falsely or in ungrounded terms, reliant on errors in process and observation, and yet as if self-evident, there is no error-correction process that can establish oversight on its conclusions, especially mathematical, especially technical, scientific, because it is concluded a priori correct due to onesidedness of binary ideology, common to the entire false-enterprise and its soulless trajectory towards nothingness as if the cosmic centre of being (removed of humanity, replaced by cyborg-based entities) aligned with the shared ideology. essentially and effectively, a population of mindless robots and human slaves. and yet there is a gap between this computer perception -- even in its seeming omniscience -- and actual reality. that which does not fit into the binary model or cannot be computed in the serial, linear equations. this sentence based language can be, it is perfect for computers to figure out, just like a chess board. to brute force meaning via linguistic structures and determine via probabilistic weighting 'truth' yet in a context of 2-value assumptions, themselves fundamentally inaccurate and ungrounded and of an inaccurate worldview that is the basis for computational models and 'computer architectures', along with the cryptographic products this extends into and becomes. that gap is where the multi bitset parallel consideration and fractal reading/writing of texts and ideas and models cannot be readily accommodated without forcing a limit to its computability by binary models of evaluation, throughout the analysis, including equipment itself and forced decision-making and prioritization (deterministic skew), to evaluation of data that exists beyond its categorization and thus functions as a field of the data subconscious, unaccounted for yet still connected with the observation unknowingly, and also group analysis of data and decision-making based in binary thinking and reliance on this viewpoint as next steps and governance over its actions. [the] [abelity] [2] [pring] [th*s] [in-to] [a-other] [r3a1w] [.is] [wot] [UPS] [th3] [comp.ut.ab.il.it.y] to try to figure out the meaning of the preceding paragraph (prior to the structured breakdown sentence) is an issue of coherence within an existing computational model that is a 'historical framework' that could become expert and game-winning in terms of a rigged human-machine scenario that functions in antihuman dynamics, where /signs/ themselves automatically subsist and move toward a realm of falsity by their default biased interpretation that has been normalized, via biased privileged onesidedness that serves a hostile agenda hidden behind a false framework and encrypted within a false perspective. whereas, going beyond this limit to recontextualize the game-board, is to establish infinities where a pattern match once was presumed to exist by default, and the computation require to solve these same domains becomes intangible, beyond the boundaries and known borders - it breaks the algorithms and requires additional interpretation yet that is also limited in comprehension, and must guess or decide what is true about it, and only partial truth could be accessed, and thus limited by 2-value logic and flawed assumptions. and so 'meaning' would remain bounded to only what can be computed and arranged - which may force incoherence and chaos and fragmentation of modeling due to its unlikeness, or it may provide arbitrariness and unknowns to such a degree to appear meaningless or gibberish. and yet encoded within its mystery could be multiple meanings or messages, essentially encrypted via this unshared POV. the substance remains hidden or beyond observation, if it existed- and who is to say it is the sentence as a sentence, and not some correlation of meaning with its subset relations and dynamics, as variables may align. the above example is arbitrary and yet it is nuance or subtlety or insight, could operate beyond the 'known realm' of other observers, as plain text even. this is nonlinear language, it is not just a serial reading word to word -----> and instead can function vertically, in 'imaginary time' (Hawking), in the sense of conceptual connections as constellations, and the ability to read and understand the signs, and for each person their language may be particular and unique. and thus literacy remains relativistic in fragmented views yet can be shared, from this distributed condition, as peer-routing of grounded observations: [variable] [variables]. and as these may or may not relate in set theory dynamics, permutations that easily move towards infinity, toward greater truth if grounded, greater falsity if not. infinitely so. so imagine each person is playing a parallel chess match with the devil, as in the The Seventh Seal. and yet this is an automated event, machine-driven and -reliant interaction and logic-based - and thus the programming and code that is running, the processing of person and computer would exist in some relational dynamic, such that: binary machine <---> binary individual binary machine <---> N-value individual binary machine <---> binary machine ... binary individual <---> binary individual binary individual <---> N-value individual N-value individual <---> N-value individual ... 2-value individual <---> N-value individual 2-value individual <---> 3-value individual 3-value individual <---> 3-value individual 3-value individual <---> N-value individual what is proposed here is that the 2-value individual or 2-value machine are fundamentally flawed and in the 3-value or N-value paradoxical interaction, this 'status quo' condition of 'shared binary relations' can be overturned by switching over to a grounded model of error-correcting, shared empirical observation, accounted for in truth. at this level of ones and zeros. and insofar as machines and people cannot do this, it becomes a realm of hacking, cracking, and exploits- programming dynamics that can take down the false frameworks via their own internal weaknesses as ideologies and ideas, based on uncorrected or implausibly deniable errors that establish and sustain tyranny as an exploit of and against truth itself, and its accounting. this is potentially related to the Turing Test likewise, in terms of a litmus for reasoning, discerning a barrier or realm of behavioral or programmatic skew, beholden to ideology. 2-value crypto <---> N-value crypto the idea of paracrypto then can operate outside the limits of the 2-value constraints because the latter is itself a subset of truth that the N-value references and aligns with in its verification and accounting. the falsity of 2-value, the gap between pT <=> T, then is the realm beyond god-status observation even while remaining trapped within its unideal context, the false perspective. 2-value (N-value) whereby: T (2-value (N-value) such that: 1 (.0000001 {99.9999999}) paracrypto in its paradoxical dimensions, could tend towards nine-nines reliability in terms of grounded observation, small finite accurate observations removed of falsity, even while contained or held captive in a largely false environment, yet which itself is embedded in a larger surrounding truth, outside the game world and control of the false god. in this way, the resonance of like with like or paired-truth could have properties of entanglement and circuit-related connectione (cosmic connectome) as parallel worlds align. xⁿ

1 0

Re: [cryptography] The Compromised Internet
by grarpamp 28 Sep '13

28 Sep '13

On 9/27/13, Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 01:12:19PM -0400, grarpamp wrote: >> >> The mentioned tech has nothing to do with traditional 'ham'. >> And without the crypto key they can't see it and can't disrupt > > HamNet/AMPRNet ... > Of course they can see it, it's a TCP/IP network routed Again, I'm not talking about encrypting packets and stuffing them over some simple carrier centered at n-MHz. That's old tech, and possibly dangerous to the well being of users noted in the OP before me.

1 0

Re: [tt] How a Crypto ‘Backdoor’ Pitted the Tech World Against the NSA
by Eugen Leitl 28 Sep '13

28 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from Christian Weisgerber <naddy(a)mips.inka.de> ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:11:47 +0000 (UTC) From: Christian Weisgerber <naddy(a)mips.inka.de> To: tt(a)postbiota.org Subject: Re: [tt] How a Crypto ‘Backdoor’ Pitted the Tech World Against the NSA Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> wrote: > http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/nsa-backdoor/all/ These articles from Matthew Green's Blog offer a better understanding instead of cutesy writing and soundbites: The Many Flaws of Dual_EC_DRBG http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/09/the-many-flaws-of-dualecdrb… RSA warns developers not to use RSA products http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/09/rsa-warns-developers-agains… -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy(a)mips.inka.de _______________________________________________ tt mailing list tt(a)postbiota.org http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt ----- 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

2 1

Re: [cryptography] The Compromised Internet
by grarpamp 28 Sep '13

28 Sep '13

On 9/27/13, Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> wrote: > I don't see how a ham running a repeater backbone can > prevent end to end encryption other than sniffing for > traffic and actively disrupting it. I'm not sure tampering > with transport is within ham ethics, though they definitely > don't understand the actual uses for encryption, at > least the old hands (are there even new hands?). The mentioned tech has nothing to do with traditional 'ham'. And without the crypto key they can't see it and can't disrupt it, it's background/spectrum noise/power to them. Traditionally, presumably hams might discover non-in-the-clear on a specific channel, perhaps triangulate, and report it to some regulatory body (or DoS it). That's not applicable, by design.

1 0

[liberationtech] FW: What the IETF is thinking about Prism these days..
by Eugen Leitl 28 Sep '13

28 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from michael gurstein <gurstein(a)gmail.com> ----- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:55:16 -0700 From: michael gurstein <gurstein(a)gmail.com> To: liberationtech <liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu> Subject: [liberationtech] FW: What the IETF is thinking about Prism these days.. X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Reply-To: liberationtech <liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu> Title : Prismatic Reflections Author(s) : Brian Carpenter Filename : draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2013-09-19 Abstract: Recent public disclosure of allegedly pervasive surveillance of Internet traffic has led to calls for action by the IETF. This draft exists solely to collect together a number of possible actions that were mentioned in a vigorous discussion on the IETF mailing list. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00 -- Liberationtech is public & 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: [Cryptography] RSA recommends against use of its own products.
by Eugen Leitl 28 Sep '13

28 Sep '13

----- Forwarded message from Jerry Leichter <leichter(a)lrw.com> ----- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:12:25 -0400 From: Jerry Leichter <leichter(a)lrw.com> To: ianG <iang(a)iang.org> Cc: cryptography(a)metzdowd.com Subject: Re: [Cryptography] RSA recommends against use of its own products. X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:31 PM, ianG <iang(a)iang.org> wrote: > Hi Jerry, > > I appreciate the devil's advocate approach here, it has helped to get my thoughts in order! Thanks! :-) > My conclusion is: avoid all USA, Inc, providers of cryptographic products. In favor off ... who? We already know that GCHQ is at least as heavily into this monitoring business as NSA, so British providers are out. The French have been playing the "oh, we're shocked, shocked that there's spying going on" game - but they have a long history of their own. It's been reported for many years that all Air France seats are bugged by the French security services and the information recorded has been used to help French economic interests. And even if you don't think a particular security service has been going after in-country suppliers, recall decades of US spiking of the Swiss Crypto AG machines. It's a really, really difficult problem. For deterministic algorithms, in principle, you can sandbox the implementation (both physically and in software) and compare inputs and outputs to a specification. That leaves you to worry about (a) holes in the specification itself; (b) physical leakage of extra information (Tempest-like). Both of these can be dealt with and you can gain any degree of assurance you consider necessary, at least in principle. Sure, someone can spike your hardware - but if it only does what the spec says it's supposed to do, what does that gain them? (Storing some of your secrets within the sandboxed system does them no good if they can't get the information out. Of course, physical security is essential, or your attacker will just walk the system, with all its contained information, out the door!) For probabilistic algorithms - choosing a random number is, of course, the simplest example - it's much, much harder. You're pretty much forced to rely on some mathematics and other analysis - testing can't help you much. There are really no absolutes; you really have to think about who you want to protect yourself from and how much you are willing to spend, because there's no limit on how much you *could* do. Build your own foundry? Create your own circuit synthesis code? You very quickly get yourself into a domain where only a handful of companies or countries can even begin to go. My take on this: I don't much worry about attacks against general-purpose hardware. The difficulty of modifying a processor so that you can tell when it's implementing a cipher and then do something useful about it seems insurmountable. The exception is when the hardware actually gets into the crypto game - e.g., the Intel AES extensions and the random number generator. If you're going to use these, you need to do so in a way that's secure even if those features are spiked - e.g., use the random number generator only as one of a couple of sources. Still, *much* more worrisome are the badly implemented, insecure extensions to allow remote control of the hardware, which are being discussed in a separate thread here. These are really scary - there's no protection against an attacker who can send a magic packet to your network interface and execute code with full privileges. Code, at least for symmetric cryptography primitives and modes, is simple enough that you can find it all over the place. Realistically, the worst attacks against implementations these days are timing attacks. Bernstein's ciphers have the advantage of being inherently secure against these, showing that this is possible (even if you don't necessarily trust his particular constructions). Denker's ideas about how to get random numbers whose safety is based on physical principles are great. You do have to be careful of the hardware and software you use, but since the hardware is designed for entirely different purposes (A/D sound converters) it's unlikely anyone has, or really could, spike them all. It's the asymmetric algorithms and implementations that seem to be the most vulnerable. They are complex and difficult to get right, much less to get both efficient *and* right, and protocols that use them generally need to be probabilistic - so "black box testing" isn't feasible. At the same time, they have rich mathematical structures in which we know things can be hidden. (In the symmetric case, the algorithms are generally have little mathematical structure, and we *assume* nothing can be hidden in there - but who can really say with absolute confidence.) I had a long debate here earlier on this subject, and my own conclusions remain: Use symmetric crypto as little as you possibly can. (What would be really, really nice is something like DH key exchange without all the mathematical structure.) -- Jerry _______________________________________________ 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

3 2