2 ms·

The article talks about hidden markov modelling, which combined with initial training data, can theoretically be applied to your cipher to solve for a solution.

The article talks about hidden markov modelling, which combined with initial training data, can theoretically be applied to your cipher to solve for a solution. The number of things that humans can observe and create sensible (memorable) code from is not infinite. It must be based on some aspect of the environment from which information is derived. You get the abstract form (the grammar) and train to infer the patterns of how substituted words are selected. Then, what will happen is language will cease to make sense as the complexity to communicate secretly increases. The real targets will communicate using literal forms of encryption. There will be layers and hierarchies of metaphors and symbolism, organizations of analogies and relations, similar to the complexity level of fictional narrative literature. It is a combination of abstraction and environmental observation. Or maybe it is already happening, and it's just a little check mark next to a bunch of check marks that indicate something symbolic and abstract about the future.

schoen 12y ago
It does depend on the size of the corpus; the literal interpretation could still be the highest-probability interpretation even if it's wrong. So if I have a habit of always using the word "norble" instead of "computer", someone with a large corpus of my speech can manually or automatically infer what I'm talking about (particularly given a knowledge of English, since I'd say stuff like "norble programming" or "reboot your norble"). If I speak an unknown language or jargon or relex or word-substitution code for only a short time -- giving very few samples of each unfamiliar word -- that might not be possible. There's just not enough data to make the correct interpretation more probable than other interpretations! But yeah, if linguists and philologists can translate languages just from fieldwork observations or inscription corpora, we can be confident that if you use language in a weird idiosyncratic way for a while, people (or machines) who can observe you will come to understand you too.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
discardorama 12y ago
A few years ago, I was reading about terrorists in Kashmir who realized they were being monitored, so switched to using common words for their terroristic communications. The same person, talking to X will use "tea bags" for "ammo"; and talking to Y, will use "tea bags", for, well, "tea bags". Now he makes 2 calls: "I'm out of teabags; can you send some more?". How can you tell what he's talking about?
- drcomputer 12y ago
  I would monitor and perform analysis for a grammatically structured pattern across the dialogue, instead of focusing on the individual person as a discrete entity. I would treat a dialogue from t(a) to t(b) as a unit to analyze instead, and look for markers that indicate a dialectically independent symmetry between the composition of sentences. If people use word substitution, they are relying on an implicit pattern they can both distinguish "on the face" as code.

schoen 12y ago

It does depend on the size of the corpus; the literal interpretation could still be the highest-probability interpretation even if it's wrong. So if I have a habit of always using the word "norble" instead of "computer", someone with a large corpus of my speech can manually or automatically infer what I'm talking about (particularly given a knowledge of English, since I'd say stuff like "norble programming" or "reboot your norble"). If I speak an unknown language or jargon or relex or word-substitution code for only a short time -- giving very few samples of each unfamiliar word -- that might not be possible. There's just not enough data to make the correct interpretation more probable than other interpretations! But yeah, if linguists and philologists can translate languages just from fieldwork observations or inscription corpora, we can be confident that if you use language in a weird idiosyncratic way for a while, people (or machines) who can observe you will come to understand you too.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

discardorama 12y ago

A few years ago, I was reading about terrorists in Kashmir who realized they were being monitored, so switched to using common words for their terroristic communications. The same person, talking to X will use "tea bags" for "ammo"; and talking to Y, will use "tea bags", for, well, "tea bags". Now he makes 2 calls: "I'm out of teabags; can you send some more?". How can you tell what he's talking about?

drcomputer 12y ago
I would monitor and perform analysis for a grammatically structured pattern across the dialogue, instead of focusing on the individual person as a discrete entity. I would treat a dialogue from t(a) to t(b) as a unit to analyze instead, and look for markers that indicate a dialectically independent symmetry between the composition of sentences. If people use word substitution, they are relying on an implicit pattern they can both distinguish "on the face" as code.