In It's Complicated, by Danah Boyd, she discusses the complicated situations teens face with social media. A big topic of discussion is privacy: "The default in most interpersonal conversations, even those that take place in public settings, is that interactions are private by default, public through effort... In other words, when participating in networked publics, many participants embrace a widespread public-by-default, private-through-effort mentality" (Boyd). It is said that a verbal conversation (in person) is a private act, that is only public when made to be. On the other hand, an interaction on the internet is public, an only made private when made to be. This statement catches my attention because it focuses on social norms in reality versus expectations of the internet. In real life, people are expected not to ease drop one another, intrude on conversations, or not interact unless brought into the conversation. On the internet, however, all of these expectations become void, as the internet is a public place. A person has to go through special care to make sure something is private, rather than assume that others are not paying attention. It makes you think, are your conversations private at all? Probably not. Just because it is not considered socially acceptable to listen in on a conversation does not mean people do not do it. Privacy of your affairs should never be expected, but rather always assumed to be public by default. It is in our nature to be curious, and at times that leads us to be intrusive. It is never safe to assume that something is private, especially just because it is socially expected to be. The only fool proof way to achieve privacy is through effort
Episode 97 of 99% Invisible, Number Stations, is a podcast that discusses the mysterious shortwave radio transmissions that simply list random numbers. The topic of the podcast is really interesting. Imagine just tuning a radio and you suddenly hear random numbers being said. What would go through your head? To me, it feels like something out of the Twilight Zone. The podcast goes on to describe what the transmissions were and how almost everybody was sending them out. So little. I find it amazing to think that they were so easily accessible but virtually impossible to be of use to anyone except the intended recipient. Maybe to bigger organizations like the CIA, who themselves were setting up a few of these stations, there was something to be done with these. However, to your average day person, the transmissions were meaningless and just eerily there. The producer paired the podcast with some pictures and a written summary of what the podcast contained. This helped in understanding the podcast as you were able to follow along and know what was about to be discussed. He also made references when speaking that a listener could go the extra step and look up. The podcast does an excellent job of catching a listeners attention, as well as providing sources that allow a listener to go the extra step and research the topic themselves. I would like to format my podcast in a similar way to this informative and intriguing podcast on number stations.
As we know from history, the Allies were successful in cracking the Axis' encryption methods. A major part of this success, as Singh states, is German overconfidence. Another reason for their success was simply limited ability. The Enigma Machine, as impressive as it was, was restricted by possible plug board settings and scrambler combinations. The limitations of the machine combined with its extreme complexity and German laziness, led to repeated message keys, cillies, and stereotypical messages. As a result, the Allies were able to exploit cribs and this helped lead to the cracking of the Enigma. Allied success in with decryption, relied on German limitation. The Enigma was indeed limited, and this allowed the Allies the chance to break the code. German laziness also helped the Allies exploit the weaknesses in Enigma as they helped make it more predictable and pattern based.
Allied success did not only lie in German error. It also relied deeply on their own coding ability. The Allies had very strong encryption methods, such as the Typex, the SIGABA and the Navajo code talkers. Knowing that they had sound encryption methods allowed them to focus more on the decryption of Axis codes, rather than struggling to encrypt their own codes. Being able to focus their efforts on decryption played a major role on breaking the Enigma and other Axis coding methods. The difference between the Axis and the Allied forces was simply that the Allies had stronger encryption methods. In the end, Allied success was based off of the fact that the Allies won the coding war.
The display in the Newseum asks what people would give up for security. The results are exactly as you would expect. Some people make arguments for pro privacy and there are others for pro security. There is no clear cut answer to this question. One person summed up all the answers in a nutshell by stating "as much as necessary to feel safe". This answer struck me specifically because he used the term "feel safe" rather than "be safe". This implies that there is no definitive answer. The answer depends solely on what you, as an individual, value the most and would be willing to give up. For example,person A may feel safer knowing that their private life is secure from outside viewing. In that case they would not give up anything for safety, as they are already safe. However, person B may feel safer knowing private information can be viewed by outside parties, such as the FBI, in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. In this case, they would grant access to private information in order to give government the ability to use data mining to potentially spot a hidden terrorist. In each scenario, the individual gives up different things in order to feel safe. However, it is intriguing because in person B would not consider the person A to be safe, based on what they value. The display in the Newseum does a fantastic job at portraying the actual complexity of this question, as it highlights that each person has different values and those values govern their stance on this question.
Before the Vigenère cipher, a simple monoalphabetic substitution cipher was the most advanced encryption. This is a weak way of coding however, as an encryption is only as strong as the key used to create it, and tools such as frequency analysis make this easy to conquer. Any code could be broken if the person who intercepted it was well acquainted with basic deciphering methods. The best way to protect your secret message was to assume that anyone could intercept and decipher your code. It was a given that before the Vigenère cipher was invented, that no encryption was completely safe. That being said, not many people realized this and truly thought they were keeping their secrets safe. A perfect example of this is Mary Queen of Scots.
Mary Queen of Scots spent her time imprisoned sending encrypted messages back and forth with a conspiracy group. Mary, along with the rest of the group, ignorantly thought that no one was able to crack their "master" encryptions. As a result they talked about many sensitive topics, especially the coup to overthrow the Queen of England. Their false sense of security led to their demise because, in reality, their code was very easy to break. They thought that their code was unbreakable, however, there was no sure way to know how accurate this claim was. Mary downfall was underestimating the environment in which she lived. She assumed that no one would be smart enough to break her code, but as she soon learnt, an encrypted message can be cracked to spill the secrets it contains.
In Little Brother, by Cory Doctorow, Marcus's father supports the actions of the police saying that Bayesian analysis is a reasonable and logical response. He believes that data mining is key to crime prevention: "...it's perfectly reasonable to conduct their investigation by starting with data mining, and then following it up with legwork where a human being actually intervenes..." (Doctorow 109). Drew begins as an advocate for this tactic but when it is taken too far and used to hurt rather than help he quickly turns against it.
This passage is so interesting because it shows a crucial point to the Security vs. Privacy that is so prominent today. The idea behind this type of analysis is data mining is an instrument and not a weapon. The proper use is to help, in the case of Little Brother, police "sort through the haystack to find a needle" (Doctorow 110). However, the police quickly cross the line when they rely solely on data mining to assess every aspect of a person. They lost the human component that makes their work humane. This passage is relevant to so many other topics too. For instance, the discussion about if data mining should be allowed at colleges and universities contains many key points that are touched upon here. Bayesian analysis could be utilized as a tool to help prevent future school attacks. Data mining can be one of the most helpful resources as long as it is kept in check. Long story short, this is an issue that can be argued for ages and that can never truly been answered. It is obviously wrong to use data mining to invade the privacy of an individual, but it gets extremely complicated when it could mean the safety of the majority.
In "Mining Student Data Could Save Lives", Morris argues that mining data is basically a crystal ball into the future. Data mining will give the ability to notice and prevent potential threats to the campus and community around it. The example Morris uses is a school shooter. If a university can use data mining to monitor students' online behavior, then they can look for warning signs that people may display before they do something harmful to themselves and or others.
One study shows that between the years 2013 and 2015 there were 160 school shootings, with 47 percent of those taking place in a college or university (Everytown Research). Many of these could have been stopped with some preemptive data mining. Yes, it is true that every student has a right to privacy and their rights should be respected. However, the overall safety of the student body is much more important than the possibility of someone seeing your recent search history. Realistically, data mining will be much more helpful than hurtful. A school shooting is not likely to happen in your school. But what if it did? If data mining is allowed, then the likely hood of a shooting happening diminishes even more. The safety of students is a top priority among all universities. The use of data mining would not be a tool to invade a student's privacy, but rather a weapon to counteract horrendous acts.
In The Code Book, by Simon Singh, the discovery of cryptanalysis is discussed. It is explained that without a strong background in core disciplines, cryptanalysis is impossible to achieve. Mathematics, statistics, and linguistics are vital in the development of many methods, such as frequency analysis. Earlier civilizations lacked a certain amount of efficiency in these fields, and that is why cryptanalysis was not discovered until around A.D. 750. The discovery was made in the Islamic civilization during a time when the arts and sciences began to explode with breakthroughs. It took years to become masters of cryptoanalysis, like they were.
It is not uncommon in modern society that an amateur cryptanalyst is able to crack a simple substitution cipher using the same method of frequency analysis, without ever being formally taught it. Are all modern cryptanalysts just naturally born geniuses in the art of code breaking? No, that's not likely. Instead, our society has just developed significantly since the year A.D. 750. People are given a better foundation when growing up in the arts and sciences. Mathematics, statistics, and linguistics are taught to all people, in varying degrees of course, but these fields are still emphasized. Civilization has advanced so far that many people have a basic understanding of subjects, that very few people knew about in ancient times. This is the main reason why amateur cryptanalysts can decipher substitution ciphers with out extensive training. To people in today's day and age it is just a "logical" way to attack enciphered messages, opposed to the people in ancient times who worked tirelessly to unlock the secrets of mathematics.