Enough CODES, use PGP!

[Silicon]

Come on with these silly "codes" Randi! Enough of this ISBN and your trick-letter cyphers. There are plenty of people here who can break codes. This one better be better than ENIGMA, because, you know, some of us on here KNOW how to use COMPUTERS and MATH.

Just use public-key encryption and get it over with. That's verifyable publicly, and recognized as unbreakable over the time duration of the experiment.

Plus any skeptics can decypher the code list themselves at home.

Just encode the secret answer with a key, and send out the encoded answer publicly at the start of the contest. Then at the end, send out the key.

Come on James, DO THIS RIGHT.

Science should be conducted in a scientific manner. You should have the STRONGEST safegards feasable, not a "shrug, this ought to do" attitude. What's next, Little Orphan Annie Decoder Rings?

Your disbelief in psychic powers is affecting your scientific method. There is data leakage here. Don't treat it like a parlor trick.

 

[Silicon]

Plus another problem with your current code is that there may possibly be two answers or more.

Your system is insecure, therefore.


Let's say you create a simple letter-replacing cypher. It's pretty simple to create one that when using one key you get the answer "Dictionary" and when using the other one, you get "Sunglasses".

That's not a secure algorithm from my point of view as a skeptical observer. If there were a ton of correct readings that the Dictionary was in fact the target, you could reveal your other key which would reveal the answer to be "Sunglasses."

That's why you need to use a recognized encryption scheme that IS NOT CREATED BY JAMES RANDI, Magician. And why that encryption scheme MUST be made public knowlege BEFORE the Experiment begins.


Science must be conducted in a scientific manner. Otherwise this is just a parlor trick.

 

[Javalar]

You're wrong Silicon, a PGP encryption wouldn't work. If you know the public key (and Randi would have to give it in order for the encryption to have any kind of relevance), you simply have to encrypt every word in the list and match the result with the cypher given by Randi.

There is in fact no way to do this without having a bit of faith in Randi or without giving a list of items. But because Randi has only a small answer poll, he has to give a list of answers (if 400 people answer with 200 different answers, the results aren't terribly interresting. It also makes it impossible to calculate the odds)

Plus any skeptics can decypher the code list themselves at home.

 

[Moose]

Come on with these silly "codes" Randi! Enough of this ISBN and your trick-letter cyphers. There are plenty of people here who can break codes. This one better be better than ENIGMA, because, you know, some of us on here KNOW how to use COMPUTERS and MATH.

*grin* So prove your point and crack it.

 

[Silicon]

You're wrong Silicon, a PGP encryption wouldn't work. If you know the public key (and Randi would have to give it in order for the encryption to have any kind of relevance), you simply have to encrypt every word in the list and match the result with the cypher given by Randi.

Do you know how Public-key encryption works?

You can circulate the message with NO KEYS. NONE.

Then divulge the public key at the end of the contest.



http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html



Yes, the nature of PGP is that every reader can RUN PGP on their computers and decypher the code list themselves at home. Don't be so perplexed.

 

[Silicon]

Re: Re: Enough CODES, use PGP!

*grin* So prove your point and crack it.

I don't have to prove it. Randi has failed to prove his assertion that his contest is fair and secure.

One code has already been broken. I don't trust this new one.

He needs to do this in a transparant, secure fashion.


Failing that, I, as a skeptic, call it a parlor trick.

I think this reflects badly on skeptics, running a test like this under conditions that Randi would NEVER agree to if the $1Million were on the line.

I mean, why the HELL does he even bother with the stupid "I throw a bunch of random paper slips in the air" pseudo-random, pseudo-impartial stunt work if he's not going to plug this data-leak? And it's a HUGE data-leak. It's THE ANSWER.

Hey Randi, can I have the million if I guess what's in your locker? How about if I guess it 10 times? But you must give my your code word in advance! It gives my psychic powers something to FOCUS on!

Why bother with this "experiment" at all, since it attempts to prove something that

1. Is only falsifyable if he gets positive results. ie "Proven: Remote Viewing Doesn't Exist".
2. Nullifys any positive results. If he gets evidence that Remote Viewing exists, he has introduced data leakage into the experiment that would nullify it.

Why bother with a code word ANYWAY, since

1. The code word has already been broken once.
2. The code can have multiple keys which yield different positive results, making it insecure.


That's the problem with using the isbn code. Any code already in use is already compromised for data leakage.

Any code devised by Randi can have multiple correct answers.

 

[abiogenesis]

I agree with Silicon. This is supposed to be a test of remote viewing, not a test of Randi's encryption schemes. Use one that works.

PS- To keep in line with my anti-faith bent, I refuse to have faith in Randi. All evidence, thus far, is that he cannot come up with a secure cipher.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

 

[Javalar]

Do you know how Public-key encryption works?

You can circulate the message with NO KEYS. NONE.

Then divulge the public key at the end of the contest.



http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html



Yes, the nature of PGP is that every reader can RUN PGP on their computers and decypher the code list themselves at home. Don't be so perplexed.

Then, in this case, how does using PGP differ with using any other encryption method?

 

[abiogenesis]

Javalar: Then, in this case, how does using PGP differ with using any other encryption method?

PGP has been proven as an effective method of encryption. Although it is theoretically possible to crack, it is highly unlikely that this could be done within the duration of the experiment.

Randi's previous scheme, on the other hand, was cracked rather quickly. I would assume that some of those so inclined are already hard at work on the current code.

Since encryption is not the focus of this experiment, it would be wise to use a method that has already been proven to work.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

 

[Silicon]

How does PGP differ from any other encryption method?



Because it's:

1. Transparent. The entire source code is published.
2. Standard. It's the most reliable open-source encryption publicly available.
3. Free. Everyone can use it.
4. Multi-platform. Runs on everything. Windows 95/98/NT/ME/XP, Linux, Solaris, Mac, AIX, HPUX, DOS...
5. Almost certainly uncrackable in the time-frame of the contest with today's computing technology. Unlike EVERY other system Randi has legal access to.
6. Legal to use. Most good encryption is illegal. Most legal encryption is not good.
7. Unable to be spoofed. The source code is checked and signed by independent certifiers.
8. User friendly. Easy to use. Drag and Drop.
9. Trusted. The most trusted Public Domain encryption on the planet.
10. Readily available. Can be downloaded from multiple sources for free.
11. Unique solution. It can't be rigged so that Randi can back out of a true positive.


Is that enough reasons?

 

[Javalar]

Re: Re: Re: Enough CODES, use PGP!

I don't have to prove it. Randi has failed to prove his assertion that his contest is fair and secure.

One code has already been broken. I don't trust this new one.

He needs to do this in a transparant, secure fashion.


Failing that, I, as a skeptic, call it a parlor trick.

I think this reflects badly on skeptics, running a test like this under conditions that Randi would NEVER agree to if the $1Million were on the line.

I mean, why the HELL does he even bother with the stupid "I throw a bunch of random paper slips in the air" pseudo-random, pseudo-impartial stunt work if he's not going to plug this data-leak? And it's a HUGE data-leak. It's THE ANSWER.

Hey Randi, can I have the million if I guess what's in your locker? How about if I guess it 10 times? But you must give my your code word in advance! It gives my psychic powers something to FOCUS on!

Why bother with this "experiment" at all, since it attempts to prove something that

1. Is only falsifyable if he gets positive results. ie "Proven: Remote Viewing Doesn't Exist".
2. Nullifys any positive results. If he gets evidence that Remote Viewing exists, he has introduced data leakage into the experiment that would nullify it.

Why bother with a code word ANYWAY, since

1. The code word has already been broken once.
2. The code can have multiple keys which yield different positive results, making it insecure.


That's the problem with using the isbn code. Any code already in use is already compromised for data leakage.

Any code devised by Randi can have multiple correct answers.

Silicon, I think you're taking this test a whee bit too seriously.

 

[Javalar]

How does PGP differ from any other encryption method?



Because it's:

1. Transparent. The entire source code is published.
2. Standard. It's the most reliable open-source encryption publicly available.
3. Free. Everyone can use it.
4. Multi-platform. Runs on everything. Windows 95/98/NT/ME/XP, Linux, Solaris, Mac, AIX, HPUX, DOS...
5. Almost certainly uncrackable in the time-frame of the contest with today's computing technology. Unlike EVERY other system Randi has legal access to.
6. Legal to use. Most good encryption is illegal. Most legal encryption is not good.
7. Unable to be spoofed. The source code is checked and signed by independent certifiers.
8. User friendly. Easy to use. Drag and Drop.
9. Trusted. The most trusted Public Domain encryption on the planet.
10. Readily available. Can be downloaded from multiple sources for free.
11. Unique solution. It can't be rigged so that Randi can back out of a true positive.


Is that enough reasons?

I'm not convinced it's the only one, but I have to admit it would fit the bill.

Although I did though there was patent on PGP encryption. Guess I was wrong.

 

[Silicon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough CODES, use PGP!

No, it's just that if Randi had used pgp it would have been solved in 10 minutes.


Now we wait another week, and then see oopsie, another code.

Do you enjoy continually guessing only to have your vote thrown out?

How many weeks do we go through this until Randi learns he's not a cryptographer and this isn't a code-solving quiz?

Silicon, I think you're taking this test a whee bit too seriously.

Javalar, next time you have an idea, I'm going to post on your thread that it won't work. Then you explain that I don't know what I'm talking about. Then I'll be all nitpicky and doubtful, and then despite you sending me links to where I can find all the information, I'll still be negative, then when you spoon feed me the whole dang thing I'll say to you:


GEE I think you're taking this subject a WHEE bit too seriously!



This thread WAS a simple suggestion that would have taken Randi all of 10 minutes to do and be done and finished with.

Oh, and the Public Key Encryption IS patented. PGP uses the patent through a unique arrangement. It's free for non-commercial and educational use, as the JREF is.

 

[jimerson]

Just use public-key encryption and get it over with. That's verifyable publicly, and recognized as unbreakable over the time duration of the experiment.

Shhhhh! You're gonna spoil all our fun over in the Puzzles section.

 

[jema]

I'd guess Randi dpes not know enough about things like PGP, and therefore is more confident in his own method. This is a mistake to anyone who knows about PGP, but pretty understandable.

Why does Randi have to be infallable?

jema

 

[Silicon]

Yeah, I'm resigned to the idea that I'm shouting into the wind here.

But that's the nature of a scientist sometimes, eh?


I think you're right, the puzzles section is the proper place for this discussion! ;-)

 

[bretm]

You're not shouting into the wind, Silicon, you're absolutely right. PGP is the simple and (to many) obvious solution.

There are other secure solutions for this particular problem that are simpler than public key cryptography, but none that have such widely available software implementations.

An example of a mathematically simpler solution would be to concatenate the object name with a random secret message (about 30 random letters should do) and then publish the SHA1 hash of the result. Then, the when the object is revealed, the random message is published which would allow anyone to confirm the result--anyone with the right software or hardware, that is, and therein lies the biggest benefit of the PGP in this case.