Idiot code: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Made the changes made in revision 187210154, which seems to have been accidentally reverted |
Linked to article on 9/11 attacks rather than article on that date; put "Origin" and "Modern usage" headings under "Etymology"; removed "Example" section (nothing special about that code); etc. |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
{{Orphan|date=January 2008}} |
{{Orphan|date=January 2008}} |
||
An '''idiot code''' is a [[code]] whereupon the "[[syntax]]" or "rules" of [[communication]] are worked out between the parties. |
An '''idiot code''' is a [[code]] whereupon the "[[syntax]]" or "rules" of [[communication]] are worked out between the parties. This type of communication is akin to the hand signals used by armies in the field.{{Fact|date=January 2008}} |
||
== Example == |
|||
Any sentence where 'day' and 'night' are used means 'attack'. The location mentioned in the following sentence specifies the location to be attacked. |
|||
Message: We walked day and night through the streets but couldn't find it! Tomorrow we'll head on to Rome. |
|||
== De-coding == |
== De-coding == |
||
There are only two ways to break this code: |
There are only two ways to break this code:{{Fact|date=January 2008}} |
||
# Know what the rules are. |
# Know what the rules are. |
||
# See enough of the messages to work out the rules. |
# See enough of the messages to work out the rules. |
||
The problem with number 1 is that this type of information passing is set up before usage and is extremely hard to decipher as the message is "hidden in plain sight". Anybody intercepting this message probably would not even know it is a communication. |
The problem with number 1 is that this type of information passing is set up before usage and is extremely hard to decipher as the message is "hidden in plain sight". Anybody intercepting this message probably would not even know it is a communication.{{Fact|date=January 2008}} |
||
The problem with number 2 is that you would need several verified messages of this type to determine the rules of communication. |
The problem with number 2 is that you would need several verified messages of this type to determine the rules of communication.{{Fact|date=January 2008}} |
||
== Disadvantages == |
== Disadvantages == |
||
The drawbacks of this type of message passing is that is it extremely limited. A [[codebook]] would be needed to effectively communicate complex information. Simple information such as "yes" or "no" can be built into phrases and have several variants. However, complex information such as "Meet a man with red hair under the Bass Bridge at 12:43 and be sure to wear a black cloak and a fedora so he recognises you" would be much harder unless you have constructed your rules to allow for this type of information to be passed. |
The drawbacks of this type of message passing is that is it extremely limited. A [[codebook]] would be needed to effectively communicate complex information. Simple information such as "yes" or "no" can be built into phrases and have several variants. However, complex information such as "Meet a man with red hair under the Bass Bridge at 12:43 and be sure to wear a black cloak and a fedora so he recognises you" would be much harder unless you have constructed your rules to allow for this type of information to be passed.{{Fact|date=January 2008}} |
||
This type of communication is akin to the hand signals used by armies in the field. |
|||
== |
== Etymology == |
||
=== Origin === |
|||
An early use of the term appears to be by George Perrault, a character in the science fiction book ''Friday''<ref>[http://members.aol.com/siure/heinlein3.htm ''Friday''] (1982) by [[Robert Heinlein]]: page 163</ref> by [[Robert Heinlein]]: |
An early use of the term appears to be by George Perrault, a character in the science fiction book ''Friday''<ref>[http://members.aol.com/siure/heinlein3.htm ''Friday''] (1982) by [[Robert Heinlein]]: page 163</ref> by [[Robert Heinlein]]: |
||
| Line 33: | Line 27: | ||
::The simplest sort [of code] and thereby impossible to break. The first ad told the person or persons concerned to carry out number seven or expect number seven or it said something about something designated as seven. This one says the same with respect to code item number ten. But the meaning of the numbers cannot be deduced through statistical analysis because the code can be changed long before a useful statistical universe can be reached. It's an idiot code... and an idiot code can never be broken if the user has the good sense not to go too often to the well.<ref>The Web: [http://www.asherblack.com/quotations.html Quotations] - Asher Black</ref> |
::The simplest sort [of code] and thereby impossible to break. The first ad told the person or persons concerned to carry out number seven or expect number seven or it said something about something designated as seven. This one says the same with respect to code item number ten. But the meaning of the numbers cannot be deduced through statistical analysis because the code can be changed long before a useful statistical universe can be reached. It's an idiot code... and an idiot code can never be broken if the user has the good sense not to go too often to the well.<ref>The Web: [http://www.asherblack.com/quotations.html Quotations] - Asher Black</ref> |
||
== Modern |
== Modern usage == |
||
Richard Miniter, author of ''Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror'', was quoted in an interview by UPI Technology News:<ref>UPI Technology News: [http://archive.infopeace.de/msg02819.html “Terrorists prove elusive” by Gene J. Koprowski], [[23 October]] [[2003]].</ref> |
Richard Miniter, author of ''Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror'', was quoted in an interview by UPI Technology News:<ref>UPI Technology News: [http://archive.infopeace.de/msg02819.html “Terrorists prove elusive” by Gene J. Koprowski], [[23 October]] [[2003]].</ref> |
||
| Line 42: | Line 36: | ||
:A sample idiot code might be as follows: “The package will arrive in Germany tomorrow,” said Miniter. “But the word ‘package’ really is code for a bomb. Only the sender of the message and the receiver know the real meaning.” |
:A sample idiot code might be as follows: “The package will arrive in Germany tomorrow,” said Miniter. “But the word ‘package’ really is code for a bomb. Only the sender of the message and the receiver know the real meaning.” |
||
Terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp said that the men who carried out the [[ |
Terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp said that the men who carried out the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] attacks on the United States used basic e-mail and what he calls “idiot code” to discuss their plans.<ref>Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty: [http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/06/a3d6bec4-ace3-4592-a271-f3f9b9c912cd.html “Middle East: Islamic Militants Take Jihad To The Internet” By Jeffrey Donovan], [[16 June]] [[2004]].</ref> |
||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Revision as of 08:34, 27 January 2008
An editor has nominated this article for deletion. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion, which will decide whether or not to retain it. |
 |
An idiot code is a code whereupon the "syntax" or "rules" of communication are worked out between the parties. This type of communication is akin to the hand signals used by armies in the field.[citation needed]
De-coding
There are only two ways to break this code:[citation needed]
- Know what the rules are.
- See enough of the messages to work out the rules.
The problem with number 1 is that this type of information passing is set up before usage and is extremely hard to decipher as the message is "hidden in plain sight". Anybody intercepting this message probably would not even know it is a communication.[citation needed]
The problem with number 2 is that you would need several verified messages of this type to determine the rules of communication.[citation needed]
Disadvantages
The drawbacks of this type of message passing is that is it extremely limited. A codebook would be needed to effectively communicate complex information. Simple information such as "yes" or "no" can be built into phrases and have several variants. However, complex information such as "Meet a man with red hair under the Bass Bridge at 12:43 and be sure to wear a black cloak and a fedora so he recognises you" would be much harder unless you have constructed your rules to allow for this type of information to be passed.[citation needed]
Etymology
Origin
An early use of the term appears to be by George Perrault, a character in the science fiction book Friday[1] by Robert Heinlein:
- The simplest sort [of code] and thereby impossible to break. The first ad told the person or persons concerned to carry out number seven or expect number seven or it said something about something designated as seven. This one says the same with respect to code item number ten. But the meaning of the numbers cannot be deduced through statistical analysis because the code can be changed long before a useful statistical universe can be reached. It's an idiot code... and an idiot code can never be broken if the user has the good sense not to go too often to the well.[2]
Modern usage
Richard Miniter, author of Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror, was quoted in an interview by UPI Technology News:[3]
- Another way terrorists use the Internet to communicate is through conventional message boards. They simply go to common public places online, chat rooms and the like, and post messages using what intelligence operatives call an “idiot code”, said Miniter.
- “The cipher for the code is only known to the people using it,” said Miniter. “There is no mathematical relationship between the messages, as there is in cryptography. Despite the name, this is a sophisticated method. But the users are forced to memorize hundreds of code words, or they can't send complicated messages.”
- A sample idiot code might be as follows: “The package will arrive in Germany tomorrow,” said Miniter. “But the word ‘package’ really is code for a bomb. Only the sender of the message and the receiver know the real meaning.”
Terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp said that the men who carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks attacks on the United States used basic e-mail and what he calls “idiot code” to discuss their plans.[4]
References
- ^ Friday (1982) by Robert Heinlein: page 163
- ^ The Web: Quotations - Asher Black
- ^ UPI Technology News: “Terrorists prove elusive” by Gene J. Koprowski, 23 October 2003.
- ^ Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty: “Middle East: Islamic Militants Take Jihad To The Internet” By Jeffrey Donovan, 16 June 2004.