Cryptography

The History and Mathematics of Codes and Code Breaking

Month: December 2018

A Trend Towards the Solution

I find it horrible that almost every week I open up my phone to see the news report of some mass shooting. Wether it be one of the gruesome, countless school shootings, or a larger event such as the Las Vegas shooting, the following investigative reports remain the same. In the following days or weeks the police and FBI will eventually uncover online conversations, gun purchases, social media posts, or other digital markers that posed a clear indication of the shooter’s intentions. Why do we always find these clues after the fact. After the heartbroken families, crying parents who know they will never see their children again. Always after. Meta data collection and surveillance could completely change the timeline and change that “after”, to a “before”. If the US government was given permission to use widespread surveillance to stop these atrocities, would that be wrong. Would the parents of victims rather have more privacy, or the chance to see their child grow up. I think it is an easy answer.

Moreover, the already increased amount of electronic surveillance since 9/11 have prevented an attack of that scale from occurring. Even still there has been about 6 major terrorist attacks since, including the Boston Marathon Bombing. So why curtail a movement in the direction of what appears to be the clear solution? National Security is important now more than ever. As criminals and terrorists learn and adapt, so should we.

American’s Privacy

Professor Amitai Azioni said that privacy is vital to the democracy and freedom of American society. Without privacy, it is difficult to think independently and it is difficult to escape the pressure of government and society, so privacy is closely related to individual freedom, freedom of speech, and individual creativity and independence. Without privacy, it is impossible to be a free society. Robert Smith said that Americans especially emphasize the government’s respect for citizen privacy. Americans’ emphasis on privacy stems from distrust of the government, especially the powerful government. Because the government has the information and manipulates the state machine, it can cause great harm to citizens. Therefore, laws are in place to limit the government’s power to use citizens’ privacy. There can be religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of thought without government restrictions. For Americans, privacy is a sacred barrier, and the government can’t break into the door and search for it.

Professor Amitai Azioni believes that the development of modern technology has increased the possibility of the government infringing citizens’ privacy without violating the law. For example, if the police want to search the house, monitor the phone or check the mail, they must first show the court that there is sufficient evidence to suspect that the person is engaged in illegal activities and can only act after obtaining the court’s permission. If this procedure is not passed, the police will refuse to use the trial even if they find a criminal certificate. But the latest technology allows the police to find out if someone is growing drugs or seeing the text on his indoor computer through an infrared monitor without entering the house.

Careful Campus

After recently watching Citizenfour, I feel myself being much more cautious about what I search on the web. I do not do this because I have anything to hide, but because people do not act the same when they believe, or in this case know, they are being surveilled. These podcast episodes did not exactly put my mind at ease either. With problems such as ransomware and botnet, it seems a lack of knowledge could cost the average citizen a lot more than a few lost files. Therefor, the question remains, how do we protect ourselves from these cyber attacks?

College students around the world use their devices for primarily social media. Some of that content is private in the sense that you only want a select amount of people to be able to view it. So, how do we protect our accounts? The best way also is the most simple: long and complicated passwords. The more random and lengthy the password is, the harder for an attacker to gain access. Another caution to hold in your mind brings me back to the video we watched about the reporter who visited “hacker-con” in Russia. To show the ease and speed with which an attacker can infiltrate a device, the interviewees set up a fake wifi account under the hotels name. The reporter logged on to the wifi and the attackers were then able to snake-hole their way through the rest of her passwords and locks with ease. If I could offer two pieces of substantial advice for fellow college students I would offer: use strong passwords and always be vigilant of what you connect with your device.

 

Criteria for Debate

The first criteria I am planning to use to evaluate the two teams is clarity of argument. This refers to whether the presenter can clearly convey the main points they are trying to make in an orderly manner. I am looking to see if I can isolate some a sort of thesis statement in each of their arguments. I will then be evaluating the strength of the evidence for the argument. I will see if the presenter has relevant examples to support their thesis, whether it be empirical or anecdotal evidence. There are many examples we studied in this course which can benefit the position of both teams and it will be interesting to see if any teams make connections to the coursework.

I will also be evaluating whether each team is able to find weaknesses in the other team’s arguments and consequently, present counterarguments. Each team should be able to defend against any counterarguments. To be able to refute the opposing side’s arguments, each team needs to listen. They need to listen to what the other side is saying and digest the information instead of just listing off the arguments they have. There is a difference between a debate and a speech. A debate is a conversation.

Surveillance and Freedom of Speech: Should the U.S succumb to an 1984 type of Society?

Put simply, surveillance is a systematic way of searching for a flaw in a pool of data and when a camera is pointed at somebody, they knowingly change the ways that they act and even think while they are being watched. The idea that you are being watched is suggestive that you are already guilty of something; if you were left alone in a room with a chair, table, and a mirror on the wall, you would become suspicious that your actions within the room are being watched and will be under scrutiny. Surveillance actually creates a great deal of paranoia and this has many deep implications.

Since we are granting the government a “wide latitude of surveillance” we can give them the power to access our social media. This especially will impact activist groups that heavily rely on the power of mass communication that social media platforms have. If the government had a greater capacity to monitor what activist groups plan or say, wouldn’t the groups begin to feel pressure from the presence of an authority figure watching over them and suppress some of their own communication. Surveillance now becomes an issue of free speech rather than a tool to help us improve our own society. If every embodiment of a thought such as a text, tweet, email or status update is looked upon by an institution that installs fear in us at time, isn’t our free speech inhibited?

A good comparison to make in this situation is the Chinese Social credit system. It is first important to note that the Chinese government has different expectations then the United States government, their tradition is more focused on promoting good social behavior. However, we should believe that if a similar system for monitoring the public is used, the government will have its own agenda as well. We cannot ensure that politics will eventually play a role in how we are being watched. How will surveillance affect conversations of complicated topics such as gun control or planned parenthood? Our country has people with opinions across a wide spectrum of values, surveillance would aid in suppressing people with specific views and bring social reform to a halt. With a “wide latitude of surveillance”, this reality isn’t very distant, and once we allow the government anymore access to our information, we will never be able to undo that large digital leap of faith.

Essential aspects about the debate

First of all, a debate is about providing arguments. So arguments are the first aspect of the debate that might be essential to the debate. Having strong arguments about the topic is the first step of having a good debate. As a note taker, it’s important to find out the main arguments of both sides and record those arguments, since those arguments are the main themes of the debate.

Second, when debaters have their arguments, they’ll have to illustrate them using examples. There’re often times when debaters do have their strong arguments but also have a hard time putting forward their ideas. The debate’s purpose is to let the judge or audience to understand the debater’s concepts. Examples serve to help the audience directly get debaters’ ideas and believe them. Therefore, examples are the second aspect that is essential to the debate.

Third, it’s also important how the debaters respond to the arguments from the other side. The debate is different from a speech. A speech can focus on only one side of a topic and talk only about the side that the speech giver stands on. A debate is different. Responding to the opponents’ arguments and prepare counter-arguments toward them is essential to the debate. It’s what makes a debate a good debate.

Overall, as a note taker, it’s important to record debaters’ arguments or counter-arguments and examples used to sell their arguments. These aspects can also be used to determine the quality of the debate.

Judging criteria for the debate

As a jury of a debate, I would like to consider several issues as the judging criteria for the debate on Monday.

First of all, the basic points for pro team and con team must be explicit and reasonable. In their first round, they must build at least one solid point of view, which should be prepared well before the debate. What I expect to hear about is the real voice for the citizens that which one is more important, privacy or security, and why. The best form of their speaking is the combination of points and examples in order to make the point more convincing.

Secondly, after hearing the point of the opposite team, they should know what is the core statement of the opponent and build up an effective counterpoint for that. For example, if the pro team states that electronic surveillance could help track criminals, I expect the con team to consider that sometimes it does not work with the system and there might be false positives that lead to the wrong direction and harm innocent people.

Thirdly, they should also learn about the possible weakness of their own points. If they could point out the weakness by themselves and do concession. Then they actually effectively eliminate one possible point of opponents. Both teams should prepare these ideas well before the debate so that they could react quickly in the class.

People cannot convince others thoroughly, but they could use their ideas to influence others’ thoughts, at least make others agree to part of their points and consider the issue from some new aspects. If they made it in this level, then they might do better than the opposite side and win the debate.

What Makes a Good Podcast?

In the two Radiolab podcasts “Darkode” and “The Ceremony”, the producers make exceptional use of conversation and sound effects to make an effective podcast. Part of what made the podcasts more interesting is that the people speaking are not really talking directly to the speaker, which is what I’m pretty sure most of us did in the podcasts we made. Instead, they had an actual conversation. I liked the Darkode episode especially because of this. The conversation also wasn’t scripted, so the speech sounded normal and human, and not like it was written first. You could tell because the people speaking actually had to think about what they were going to say next, and because there were times in which they would hesitate or laugh in the middle of a sentence, which made it all sound very natural and appealing.

Another way in which these podcast were made more accessible was the way in which the producer told one long story throughout, and then branched off to explain certain parts of it. Each of these episodes really only revolved around a few topics, but they made sure to explain every detail of the things they talked about, which is what allowed them to create a 40-50 minute long podcast episode without running out of content.

Page 2 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén