Apropos of nothing in particular, pedantic insistence on a particular usage of some relatively unimportant technical term is invariably uninteresting. I’m reminded of a few years back when…
… some random stranger here made a big deal about how obviously I didn’t know what I was talking about when I used “cryptography” when I “clearly” would have used “cryptology” if I knew anything at all about the subject...
The truth is that while cryptography and cryptology can be narrowly distinguished (the former refers to encryption, while the latter to the study of the field broadly), virtually no one actually working in the field finds the distinction important, and uses them interchangeably.
But people with little experience in the field, but who have read about it, sometimes (mistakenly) think that “correctly” using these terms is a critical sign of professionalism.
So it is in most fields. There’s often much less precision in technical jargon than you’d expect.
Occasionally, of course, precision matters a lot. When it does is one of the the things people who actually do know what they’re talking about know.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It’s thew time of year to remind people that mass-emailing faculty from a list is NOT an effective way to apply to graduate school. We have an application process. Spamming professors with your transcript/CV will just annoy people and will achieve the opposite of what you want.
If there’s a professor doing work that you’re specifically interested in or you have a specific question about something, by all means contact them, of course. But mass email doesn’t will not help your chances, and the people advising students to do it are harming them.
Around this time of year I get at least several emails -with lengthy attachments- every day from prospective students who are obviously mass-emailing from a list. So do many other faculty members. Stop telling people to do this. Get better advice if you’re being told to do this.
Gun people getting all mad at me because I (correctly, as far as I can tell) used the term “prop gun” to refer to a gun (whether fake or real) that was a prop in a film production.
Presumably the same people who get all huffy about calling them “firearms”.
“You don’t know how to field-strip an AK47, so you have no business claiming that being shot can hurt a person”.
My mentions now consist mostly of people who’ve read several blog posts on the subject taking a great deal of time to explain election security to me. Amazingly, this website is still free.
Some coverage of our paper here (but, as always, we urge you to read the paper itself). nytimes.com/2021/10/14/bus…
Building in scanning for illicit content on client computing devices, however laudable the goal, is a radical architectural concept, introducing significant security risks. And so far, specific proposals for client scanning, while often novel, have been less than encouraging.
Don’t encode SSNs of people in the HTML of publicly available webpages. And if you do, don’t call the cops if someone notices and (quite responsibly) warns you.
This case reads like a spy novel, and also illustrates the limits of cryptography. He set up encrypted communication and dead drops with a foreign government (even calling the endpoints “alice” and “bob”), but was actually communicating with the FBI.
My guess for COUNTRY1 is France: has subs, independent enough that someone might approach but friendly enough to rebuff the approach and cooperate with the US, not English speaking.
A couple things jumped out at me. As soon as the FBI got the package from COUNTRY1, they clearly took it VERY seriously. Within just a week they had analyzed the SD card and sent an initial response to the Proton account.