Talk:Digital Fortress

Triva???

Should there be a trivia section added, or something of the sort, since the alleged Jon Benet Ramsey killer John Mark Karr was seen reading this book on his flight back into the USA? I thought it was pretty interesting. Batman6 05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you User:J-Star for your change. Hurrah for artistic license! Sfdan 9 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

Biased.

It seems, in my honorable opinion, that this article focuses on the flaws of the book, and not if it was commercially successful or not. If it was a bomb, state so, not just a list of "artistic freedoms".

- Caleb Osment 09:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If the book attracted criticism for having an implausible plot, then we should document that criticism in some way. An exhaustive list of factual errors may not the best way to go, but a few examples are appropriate. — Matt Crypto 10:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but the point of an unbiased article is to show both sides. For example, "This book sold millions, blah blah blah, but was heavily criticised within certain circles, for it's lack of accurate details." Caleb Osment 13:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Caleb, I agree that the "Artistic License" section is bloating. I added it as a compromise as people were filling up the "Criticism" section with that stuff. The inaccuracies are factual and not a matter of opinion. We can discuss whether or not that much is needed or if we should start trimming. However, I for one do not think a POV check in needed. --J-Star 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps move it all to a new seperate article "Criticisms of the Da vinci code" - personally I think that having this much in an "artistic license" section in a main article is unprofessional, and turning it into a bulletin board. (This unsigned comment posted by Gruffy at 20:17, 17 January 2006)

Pointing out that reality and fiction differ is not criticism. It is merely a statement of fact. It doesn't become criticism until someone someone adds judgement and uses theses differences as arguments when doing so.--J-Star 07:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It'd be very inappropriate to move this stuff to an article entitled "Criticisms of the Da vinci code", what with this page being about Digital Fortress and all. ;) /blahedo (t) 08:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no violations of NPOV; it's not as if somebody hates the book, and wrote a scathing article about it. Pointing out every flaw or just some is up to the author- if a number of people don't agree, then we should remove the less important/prominent flaws. -Chewbacca 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me that the whole article is badly in need of references. If there has been a valid criticism from a verifiable source, then it should be placed and quoted. But if there are elements in the article that are unsourced criticism, then I agree that they should be removed, as violating the policy of no original research. Elonka 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That the goofs are goofs can be easily verified as being true, but I suppose what you're saying is that the criticism needs to have been voiced before outside of Wikipedia, rather than being newly expressed here for the first time. There has been criticism on various online places for the crypto-naffness of Digital Fortress. Some comments of this type are available here, and, more self-promotionally, here. — Matt Crypto 08:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The book seems to indicate that a 20 bit key is twice the difficulty to solve as a 10 bit key. In reality a 20 bit key is 2^10 times as hard to solve as a 10 bit key. When such fundamental flaws are present, the book is practically unreadable. Where is that within the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.2.194 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Artistic Licence"?

I think that "Artistic License" is a rather generous way to describe the glaring errors in the book, as it implies that they are mostly deliberate, which is clearly not true. Perhaps "Factual Errors" would be a better title for the third section. WP:BOLD notwithstanding, I feel that it is important to obtain consensus before changing this. --David.Mestel 18:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is. Guinnog 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much, but I'd lean towards keeping "Artistic license" to avoid the impression we're out to slam the book. — Matt Crypto 19:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your arguments, and, though I still don't agree with you, but, since I don't feel strongly on this, and I can see that everyone else thinks that we should leave it as is, I'll drop the issue

Before I changed the title to "Artistic license", the whole section was nothing but a big slam-fest where people were going after the book with pliers and blow torches. "Artistic license" emphasizes WP:NPOV. --J-Star 17:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Where has this section gone? It is linked to from Dan Brown.Billlion 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried undoing Matt's removal and it was deleted within 24 hours by some illiterate. Yes it probably was too long though most of it was true enough. Maybe someone should try a more modest criticism or else it appears that Wikipedia is unable to provide a balanced treatment of a book that even most Dan Brown fans admit is flawed. Chris55 13:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to bandy around insults ("some illiterate" etc). I removed this stuff last year because 1) it was all unsourced, but mainly 2) it was giving much too much undue weight to the factual inaccuracies in the book. That does not make for a particularly good encyclopedia article. We can discuss factual inaccuracies in the article, but it should really be driven what's already been noted in reliable third-party sources, not the random and possibly original observations of people largely out to ridicule Dan Brown (that fact that he deserves ridicule after writing Digital Fortress does not, of course, come into this). And that includes me (I spotted the bit about Enigma weighing 12 tons, rather than 12 kilos). — Matt Crypto 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Description was aimed at someone who thought "encylopediatic" was a word, not you, Matt. I already said it should be shorter. But I suspect some people will remove any criticisms. Chris55 17:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I say something? Digital Fortress is a work of FICTION. It is not a history book, or by any means needs to be correct. It's a good story to read sometime. Thats it! Happy reading! (And to all those complainers, You are so smart! You found some small errors that no one cares about! Yay for you!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.121.58 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Earth

I reverted the changes by 70.24.71.215, as they were made with no edit summary or explanation on the talk page. However, this source suggests that soil is only slightly more dense than water, which leads to the calculation that the room is somewhat less than 2m long. --David.Mestel 19:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I may make one point, that this books is fictional! No where in the novel does Mr. Brown state that any of this is true, including the supercomputer and especially the programing. Just thought i'd point this out.

Use of Japanese names and vocabulary

I'm currently reading this book and I'm disappointed with the sloppy use of Japanese words, names, and cultural references (seems to be a common problem among western writers).

The first name "Ensei," though old fashioned, is acceptable, but the last name "Tankado" sounds more like the name of a street or a bar than a person and is not listed in the Japanese Name Dictionary (WWWJDIC).

Likewise the name "Numataka" is probably fabricated. "Tokugen" is listed in the name dictionary.

In Chapter 13, Numataka is called "akuta same -- the deadly shark." The word 'same' is correct but I'm unsure where 'akuta' comes from.　It's possible Brown meant to use 'akuma' -- demon, or 'akutama' -- villain/bad guy.

In Chapter 18, "menboko -- honor and face" is mentioned, but this should be 'menboku.'

At the end of the same chapter, he makes reference to "shichigosan -- the seven deities of good luck" but 'shichigosan' actually refers to a festival celebrating children's health at the ages of 7 (shichi), 5 (go) and 3 (san). The seven deities of luck are 'shichifukujin.'

This is as far as I've read.

Neill (Comment posted by User:Redhead1978jp, 04:33, April 5, 2006 )

For some reason parts of that were deleted, and so now there is a point in the article that says "at the end of the same chapter" without ever referencing a chapter. I will change it to "at the end of chapter 18."

Units jumping around

"At one point, an underground chamber is described as having a 40-by-30 foot video wall at one end, and having been built by excavating 250 metric tons of earth. Assuming the earth to be of average density, the room would be less than 2 metres long" Feet? Then metric weight and metric tons? Shall we provide that information in furlongs, perhaps, just to further make it confusing? :-) 216.99.220.12 06:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This the english wiki!!

"Susan Fletcher, matemático brillante y jefe de la división de la criptografía de la agencia de la seguridad nacional, hallazgos mismo hechos frente con un código irrompible resistente a los ataques de la bruto-fuerza por superordenadores del procesador del NSA 3 millones de. El código es escrito por el criptógrafo Ensei Tankado, a japanese sacked a empleado del NSA, que se descontenta con la intrusión de la agencia en la aislamiento de la gente. Subastas de Tankado el algoritmo en su Web site, amenazando que su cómplice, "NDakota", lanzará el algoritmo para libre si él muere. Tankado se encuentra muerto en Sevilla, España. Fletcher, junto con su fiancé, David Becker, lingüista experto con memoria eidetic, debe encontrar una solución para parar la extensión del código."

I do not understand a word that says! It looks spansih can someone translate it to english! If you wrote that can you please explain why you worte it in spanish--Scott3 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

--It's encrypted in Kanji! How fiendishly clever! 74.98.112.165 12:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Encryption paradox

In the book is stated that the so brilliant encryption code of Ensei Tankado is encrypted by itself. (vault plans of an unbreakable vault in the vault itself).

Would it not require knowing the encryption algorithm to decrypt the encryption code? Are therefore the persons who are able to decrypt not already in possession of the decryption code? - 22 june 2006 -

That would be true. The passkey for a ciphertext encrypted by a certain algorithm would be useless unless the algorithm is known.--J-Star 09:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, That would be true however it is shown that if they were able to get the key that way there would be no need to "buy " it. That was why the NSA and the japenese firm were so intent in cracking it BYMAstudent 20:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unrealistic Crisis

The crisis in this book at the end is quite unrealistic - in any such mission critical system you have at least 2 of the exact same thing, with the ability to immediatly switch between them in the case of a problem occouring. Also, there is no need to turn the system off, as you could simpily unplug the many network cables leading to such a machine and have hours to find the kill code. The threat to their classified data being deleted is also meaningless - at least daily backups would also be carried out on any such system.

It might be possible

The main article states: "Contrary to the book's claim, it is not possible to trace the address to which an email is forwarded once it is sent (at least, not without cooperation from the recipient)." This might be possible by exploiting some security vulnerability in the email system. E.g. a bug in Sendmail only known to the NSA. --Teglsbo 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The main article also states: "Once a file has been downloaded, changing the contents of the file at the website will not normally affect any downloaded copies; this makes Strathmore's plan unworkable." I've returned the book by now, but is this really his plan? I assumed he would somehow hack the webserver containing the file. --Teglsbo 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

His plan was to hack the webserver, and replace the file, his only option was to

1: set it to atuo update, He could make this seem logical, a newer better version (With Tankado out of the picture) However, the Buyer might have some suspicions as Tankado is dead and therefore couldn't install any updates BYMAstudent 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hulohot

"Hulohot: A deaf assassin from Japan hired to hunt down Ensei Tankado and take the ring." As far as I know, he was described as a Portuguese mercenary, not originated from Japan. Could anyone confirm this?

Hulohot it's definately a portuguese name but the books says he was born in Lisbon or Lisboa, Portugal's capital. It might be a nickname or a codename. Assassin's don't usually reveal their real names. Don't you think?

Hulohot

"Hulohot" is not an portuguese name... that's strange

NSA Databank?

Does anyone know if all the government data is actually stored inside an NSA databank or is that fiction aswell?

Reply

it would make sence, because it would make life so much easyer as all the info is in one spot..

yet. its would give the conrollers well too much power, and would b a huge security risk

Slamming getting out of hand. What to do?

Alright... Dan Brown is not as accurate as the pretext says. But it seems to be a sport these days to fill Dan Brown-related Wikipedia articles with every inane little error one can think of, down to how many times a telephone rings or not! This article alone dedicates 50-75% of its bulk to nitpicking. It's absurd and must be contained.

So... suggestions? --J-Star 10:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Beelzebub, yeah, that's large (and at least a couple of sentences are my fault). My vote is that we get rid of it. Well, most of it. We can say that the book has been criticised for inaccuracies (and provide a source). We can even give an example or two, I suppose, but it's not appropriate to turn this into an exhaustive catalogue of errors. — Matt Crypto 10:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote we keep the section and trim it down to only the most notable errors... such as - in this case - the flawed plot premise. --J-Star 12:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried a bit of Googling for usable sources. Part of the problem is that a number of reviewers actually praised the book for its realism! "Digital Fortress is the best and most realistic techno-thriller to reach the market in years." [1] and "Brown certainly does his homework as it relates to computer security technology and talks intelligently about encryption algorithms" [2] by a certified computer security professional. This beggars belief, frankly. The most scholarly review I could find was in the journal Cryptologia, who say "the result is a thrilling story that is frighteningly real, with unexpected twists and turns, which will keep you turning the pages and making comparisons to Tom Clancy"[3]. My own opinion is that the book is riddled with absurd errors, but... — Matt Crypto 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Aw, not allowing the nitpicking spoils the only fun one can get from a Dan Brown novel :-) I'm not suprised you couldn't find usable sources... if people are stupid enough to buy it, they are also stupid enough to praise it, I guess. But the second External link is a very usable source IMHO. It's from a reviewer who reviews (on being asked to) a lot of books and movies for their scientific and technological content, and that alone should make him notable. I don't know how notable he actually is, though. --Shreevatsa 21:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You watch your tongue now young grasshopper. I for one liked the book. There's this thing called "Suspension of disbelief" you know. ;)--J-Star 12:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can usually manage suspension of disbelief, but I found "suspension of all intelligence" (plot predictability, etc... especially considering there is a one-to-one mapping to any of his other books)[4] and "suspension of all knowledge of the English language" to be quite tough :-) --Shreevatsa 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

deaf guy

did anyone notice that in one chapter when talking to the deaf guy he told him to go to the airport and the deaf guy heard him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -the-muffin-man- (talk • contribs) 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

- The deaf guy is reading the other person's lips. It's not said explicitly because that scene is 3rd-person limited omniscient from the other person's POV, but the text says the deaf guy was "watching his lips in the mirror" or some such. Schoop 11:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

He is also able to "hear steps" - the best form to show how a bad writer is Brown

Ok lets not get carried away i mean if you write a 510 page book there is bound to be a few flaws right?

---

I think by "hearing steps" Brown means vibrations. On a different point, isnt the summary too short and open ended, like something written on the back of a book? Also, is there a need for spoiler warnings every section?

Where is it?

Last time I visited here there was nice article regarding the book's flaws. Where is it? Why would someone delete such a facinating part? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FleetCommand (talk • contribs) 06:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

It was probably deleted because it turned into a sport to slam the book in all possible ways.--J-Star 15:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But now the article has no mention of critics. Not even that it requires too much "suspension of disbelief" to some people with minimum elementar computing skills. Nothing to do with taste, but it should at least mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.231.82.97 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Followed By...

This book is followed by Angels and Demons?? How is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.181.160 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dan Brown wrote Angels and Demons next GrahamHardy (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dan Brown wrote Angels and Demons after Digital Fortress, however, it's not to be mistaken as a sequel. —— Ryan ^(t)•(c) 14:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)