User talk:Arvindn/crypto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arvindn,

We seem to have been chasing each others' tails around various crypto articles (along with User:Imran) and all three of us (excepting the odd stylistic difference, including spelling) have been more or less pulling in the same direction. Since I'm in NY (USA), Imran appears to be in England (from some comments he has made), and you're clearly in India, this is pleasant convergence.

However, this note's purpose is less warm fuzziness than a request to you to make clear your disagreement that the cryptography article should not be featured. I am resposible for large hunks of the article as it now stands (and surely for most of the tone), and I certainly would like to remove any 'rant' quality -- completely aside from any effect on featured status. My choices of wording and approach are usually (modulo random electrical storms in the gray matter) reasoned and, I have learned to my distress, not always obvious to others though I trust/hope/imagine the intended effect is achieved. Rant has yet to be an intended effect (except perhaps with respect to comments related to The Curse afflicting the Boston Red Sox -- this year for sure!).

As I (somewhat dimly) follow the featuring process, there is a limited time it will remain a candidate with unresolved objections. Discussion may be best carried out, I suggest, on our Talk pages rather than on the candidate page.

Hope to hear from you.

ww 17:00, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oi! Cool down! I'm not going to "make clear your disagreement that the cryptography article should not be featured", because I don't think it shouldn't be featured! The structure and content is fine; I only had a problem with the wording in certain places, that's all. I was going to jump right in and work on it, but I checked the history and saw you were working furiously on it, so I thought you were in the process of fixing those things and so I kept my hands off it. Now I see we don't see eye to eye on the appropriateness of the wording, so obviously it makes sense to work together to reach a mutually acceptable version. Just give me a few minutes so I can go through the article again and come up with a concrete list of objections. -- Arvindn 17:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I thought 'disagree' meant exactly that. It doesn't??? And 'rant' has a distinct negative denotation/connation in an environment devoted to NPOV. And thus you see how... ww

Well, I said "it needs a bit of work", with the implication that I would change my vote when the tone is changed.

Oh, BTW, I hadn't seen your note asking for explanation in the featured articles page. Really sorry!!! :(

and we overlapped there, so there is more that you haven't seen either. Probably too much. ww

I don't understand? My rough guess at what you're saying is that I haven't read much of the crypto related articles and so I'm not qualified to comment.

I was referring to my additional comments on merging cryptology and crypography which got in after an edit conflict with your comments, not to other crypto related articles or to your qualifications. That was the 'overlap' mentioned. Is this an 'American English' idiom I'm too close to see? As for the 'too much', the edit conflict material is a looong paragraph. ww 15:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, here goes:

• I don't understand the sentence about Machavelli etc. in the first para. And the next sentence. What did these people to related to crypto, and what is this inherent conflict you speak of?

Actual use of crypto is a struggle between Alice/Bob and Eve/Mallory. Struggles inescapably have tactical / strategic aspects. An article of first resort which does not make this clear -- somehow -- allows/encourages readers to live in a fantasy land in which pixy-crypto software sprinkled on their security problems is an end to them. This is the security is a process not a product thing, of course. Not a responsible position for a writer (at the intro level like this) to take. so I didn't. Can you help? ww

Sure, I'll try.

• I suggest we don't mention warnings right in the intro. Truncate that para with "Readers are cautioned to take care." preferably replacing "take care" with a synonym.

I too don't like prose or ideas with sharp edges, because they force me to think more than I'm too often wont to do. So I sympathize. I tried hard to inject a little humor (Sun Tzu!??), and to be brief while making the point inescapably for a reader actually paying any attention. It's been my experience (I'm a writer on several topics, and in particular on crypto and still further a tech writer for crypto software systems from design to implementational detail), and a painful one too, that too many readers read without 'mental penetration'. I was trying to get through here. ww

• Cryptography and cryptology are not technically equivalent, the latter being more general, although the distinction has largely eroded in practice. This needs to be noted somewhere.

I agree that the terms have merged, but I'm not at all clear what the difference once was anyway. If we can get it across without taking too much space or adding too much distraction, well and good. Can you have at it? ww

• Terminology section, second para, last 2 lines definitely need to be made more formal and more polite. 'sensible' and 'your' are both unacceptable.

I've found that informal and not quite so polite is sometimes understood while the opposite (especially what is reviled in the US, among those who can actually speak the language, as Pentagonese) usually is not. Or puts to sleep. And the lack often jumps out later on and bites -- someone. Maybe this will save some rabies injections? Since thinking clearly about crypto is a peculiarly contingent thing ('thinking' about it in easy comfortable terms/images is easy and maybe even somewhat familiar -- but almost always more or less (usually more) wrong), I erred when there was a choice on the side of increased probability of understanding. If you can improve without veering too far toward somnolence, ... ww

• Could we drop the ellipses in the para beginning "When confusion on these points"?

I've been accused of too much "..." before. I use 'em because I hate repeating 'etc' or 'and so on' or other similar, and I don't want to leave the reader thinking the partial list given is a complete one. I've never found a solution. In each case here, I was trying to be 'brief while indicating there's more, so beware thinking you've got it all'. Otherwise, I've no objection. I'd love to find another trick, I hear about this one too darn much. ww

• Last 3 paras of ==modern cryptography== need a little more formality.

Probably so, and two paragraphs to get across the idea that there's no pixie dust magic to rely on when using asymmetric algorithms is probably too much. In the last para, I was again trying to make sure a point got through by informal (and so perhaps a bit unexpected) tone. Do you want to have at it, or should I? ww

• ==Further reading== definitely needs toning down! IMHO its also too long, which if anything decreases its effectiveness.

This was deliberately strongly phrased as an innoculation. It may be different elsewhere (though I expect not), but in the US (and perhaps UK), the only crypto material that can be uncritically taken is quite technical and so will not be seen nor probably tolerated by most readers. Until very recently, nearly all the rest (whihc is all most ever see, if that) was unreliable -- historically, technically, contextually, inferentially, .... My view, from one intermittently in the trench mud up to herpphggh, is a distinctly pessimistic one, though I believe a realistic one. For readers of this article (one of 'first resort'), the warnings here were seriously meant and were needed, in my view, to forestall folks Getting Infected With Crypto Nonsense. If the same effect can be had with less tone, I would be in favor by all means.

Note that since Imran removed the book list to 'books on crypto', which had been growing like a mushroom and mostly not well I fear, the warning para has looked quite disproportionate and just as long as you suggest. I'm loath to move it out of this article, because the innovulation effect will miss so many. I'm waiting for some response from Imran about putting back some of the titles, or removing all the titles, or something. See the appropriate talk pages for the state of play, which is mostly unbalanced as I write.

Let's see if we can strike a happy medium as between us, and much more importantly on behalf of the innocent reader/user/deployer with a security problem? ww

Hmmm.. we seem to have a fundamental difference here: I feel that our goal is merely to describe crypto (I agree that its much more than just the math, that's not where I differ), and that we don't care about protecting users from their own laziness or stupidity. Someone whose goal is to secure a 'production' system shouldn't be looking here. But its not a big deal, we can still reach a middle ground.

-- Arvindn 18:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It would appear that there is some disagreement -- I think. My position is that 1) this level of article should not be heavily mathematical/technical (there are other sources and indeed other atricles for that), but should suggest something of the background. We agree there. I also feel that 2) an article of first resort is not the place to be teaching crypto design/implementation/development techniques -- most readers would miss the content in such an article as this. We agree there as well. And 3) that crypto is not plain engineering. Many 'practicioners' miss this in concentrating on the neat technical issues, and most users don't have a clue and never get one. This is the place to give them a clue -- if not much more than that. The clues should include that there is no techincal crypto solution to any security problem and that such techniques as are available must be used and chosen -- by the end user! -- with care and thought. An uncomfortable conundrum not widely bruited about by crypto product suppliers for the obvious reasons. If this is actually conveyed in a reasonable way, readers -- even general readers -- will have learned an important, nay critical, fact about crypto, its choice, and its use. And that fact isn't overly technical either, which is nice from a 'writing for a general interest venue' perspective. We may not agree on this. And finally, 4) we ought to throw in enough (brief) history (it's interesting stuff, keeps the tone lighter, and gossip fans will appreciate it) and enough pointers to more info to be useful to even developers and other technical types, thus leaving whether to spend more time on the subject up to the reader. I expect we probably agree on this. As the lyric to some pop song had it, '3 out of 4 ain't bad'.

I agree with most of this, what I'm saying is that we should simply tell them and not force it on them. -- Arvindn

Which is, more or less, where I've been herding the article to the extent possible. Is there an expression in your corner of the universe about 'herding cats'?

There's no need to be sarcastic. If there's a mapping from 'overlap' to 'edit conflict' in your corner of the universe (which is, as I'm sure you know, an oxymoron accoring to current theories of the shape of the universe) then I was certainly unaware of it. -- Arvindn

Sarcastic?? To what are you referring? I included none and meant none.

As for the mapping comment, you've lost me. I was replying to you on Talk:Crypto and was in the middle of that long paragraph when there was a WP edit conflict. You had added some material 'in the middle of my edit'. It was thus, an overlap. I was not, and am still not sure you have seen that long paragraph. And have tried several times sinse to get us synch'd.

On the shape of the universe business, I'm just adrift on the World Sea and about to go aground on the Turtle's back. Help. What did you mean here? ww

Is your expectation that we can reach a middle ground confirmed or ... ? Note: please see the corrective note above in re overlap. There's been some confusion which needs to be straightened out.

Yes I'm sure we can reach a middle ground, and to that end I've made several edits, resolving a majority of my objections about the tone; assuming that my edits are accetpable to you, I will change my vote to "neutral". -- Arvindn

ww 15:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arvindn,

Another user/reader has seconded your objection to featuring. His reactions appear to primarily tone and informality thereof, with one exception. He apparantly sees crypto as mathematical, having to do with clean conceptual design, and objects to non-mathematical cruft mucking things up. I don;t think that either you or Imran (and certainly I) agree that crypto is more than its mathematical underpinings, but this user has very strong opinions. Inclusion in featured articles may be blocked as a result if sufficinet changes are not made. I'm at a loss how to proceed on the featuring problem. As for the revisions to a mutual standard problem, I suggest that we continue apace regardless. We are likely to end up with a better WP presence for the subject as a result and that would be a Good Thing. ww 15:30, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. I find it difficult to interpret the other person's statements in the manner you suggest; it looks to me like he's just arguing for a change in organization rather than on removing anything. The motivation and context could still stay. I do not happen to have a strong opinion on the matter of organization, and I do not intend to do anything about it.

I must also confess, even if it be somewhat ungenerous, that my interest is more in having a good article than on having it featured, so I do not see the matter as pressing.

If I might suggest it, it would be nice to have a ==principles== section which would incorporate some of the material in the current ==notes== section and would also explain (politely) things like why secrecy of algorithms is not good. The reason I'm not doing it myself is that to my technical mind, it is harrowing (no exaggeration, that's why I've been putting off these edits for days) to edit a large, general article. I must commend you for doing it.

Cheers, Arvindn 17:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arvindn,

I agree that a major revamp is harrowing in your sense. I avoid them when possible as well. Thanks for the changes you've made. Some were improvements in my view, and I have some wording changes to suggest in other cases which I can't get to just now. So far, nothing worth much kerfluffle about.

I too am not committed to featured status, though it would be nice. But I find that my fingers have led me astray. I meant to say, immediately above, that I believe you and I and Imran _are_ in agreement that crypto is more than mathematics... Perhaps this clarifies some unclarity.

On your suggestion in an edit summary that 'mental penetration' is not a goal, it may be phrased otherwise as 'clarity to the intended reader', in which case you might react differently as to its desirability. I do not take this as 'forcing' something on a reader as you have intimated elsewhere in this confusion of comment and recomment (we've got to do better at this!). Writing is inevitably an advocacy process in that a writer must take some position and not some other. What is to be presented to the reader must be decided before presenting anything to any reader. This means no insult to any reader, save perhaps the case of "You, reader, are an idiot..." more or less which does not obtain anywhere here. The choice of which position to take while writing is not, I think, an agressive act, though perhaps not necessarily neutral or balanced. On the question of neutrality/balance, sanity is required. In a world in which conspiracy theories and theorists abound, no neutral position is possible when the observing perspective is a sufficiently conspiratorial one. The test must not therefore be, is there objection?, but rather is there sensible objection?. A writer or speaker must necessarily take the meta position that there are views which, being sufficiently conspiritorial/extreme/loony, can be neglected. This annoys some folks immensely as they feel their nearest and dearest has been skewered. There is no remedy. In the instant case, I (you/Imran/JDForrester/others) have positions about what crypto is, about what general readers should know about it to be in a beginning sense informed, and about what crypto is not. If these are sane positions, then stating them is not unreasonable, not NPOV in violation of WP policy (as conditioned here above), not forcing something on readers. You have remarked more than once on similar points which leads me to comment here (more than I would otherwise have) in an attempt to confirm we are not at cross purposes. The writer's problem here as everywhere is to decide the boundaries of 'reasonable' and how to be effective in presenting a case.

Perhaps the agonies of the judges in the German pre-WWI prize from an industiralist and amateur mathematician for proving (was it Fermat's Last Theorem? it just fell out of my head!) may illuminate the case in a more purely technical arena. They were subjected to innumerable purported proofs from every mathematical kook around, and seem to have undergone a Ninth Circle torture as a result. Even today, mathematics departments are routinely sent circle squaring exercises by the enthusiastic, if uninformed.

As you surely have surmised from my comments here and in prior exchanges, in this article I don't think technical completeness or exhaustive inclusion is particularly to be stressed as a goal. There are meta issues in the purpose/deployment/choice of crypto which are important to end users and their concerns, and thus important to designers and developers and even to theorists. Many of those considerations are persistently invisible to/missed by the end users, and regrettably, to designers/developers/theorists though perhaps not so persistently in those cases. They are sine qua nones in the crypto world, even if too often not treated as such. Are you and I out of congruence on this issue?

Give me a couple of days or so to respond to your edits and we'll see where we are.

Comments on my thoughts re merging ...raphy and ...ology articles? This is the long paragraph in talk:cryptography.

'List of ...' are special index pages as I understand it (dimly). This may be their only special status. Just noticed I hadn't replied to that.

That's too much right now.

ww 19:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arvindn,

I've begun my responses to your edits along the lines I have outlined here, and have made a first pass for cryptographic engineering and crypto system. I'd appreciate your reaction as the changes settle down. Nothing done on merging cryptology yet.

And I'm still in the dark about your response to my remark about cats and your corner of the universe. ?? ww 15:46, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

hi dudes!!! :)