Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Petulant Politics – Bruce Schneier was Right.
34 views
Skip to first unread message
Austin Obyrne
May 16, 2013, 5:01:00 AM5/16/13
to
Bruce Schneier was right some years back when he advocated a separate group that would be dedicated to crypto research exclusively and would be devoid of non-crypto matters like bitchy attacks on individuals, irrelevant chat lines, inanity in any form.
Submissions of items for posting in that group called “sci crypt research” would be policed for irrelevancies in an unbiased detached way and errant matters would be sifted out by a team of moderators who would let through only screened items of dedicated cryptographic relevance and they would flag the rest for ditching.
The items that mattered as being of genuine cryptographic interest would be published for readers to see and peruse as having real cryptographic relevance.
This idea was great but sadly it failed – the moderators exceeded their limitations and took it upon themselves to review and judge the crypto submissions from readers – something that was not their intended remit – when they should have been policing the submissions for breaches of behaviour alone in a detached dead pan way.
The group failed due to lack of interest by readers who are also now in sci. crypt. The question begs “how much interest is there in real crypto research in the current sci crypt group and should the sci crypt group be rationalised as a section of readers who want to learn old established ciphers only and are not interested in researching new cryptography”.
Unfortunately such readers who are incapable of any design flair themselves want to hack away with their petulant politics at other more gifted research-orientated readers because of research matters that they cannot comprehend. They either do not have the intellectual wherewithal as a basis to do so or they are unwilling to take foundation courses in the subject matter of the ciphers being discussed that would lead to their eventually comprehending the algorithms of new submissions.
It would be interesting to hear what Mr Schneier has to say about this today, his concept was right of course but his choice of moderators was not it would seem.
- adacrypt
Submissions of items for posting in that group called “sci crypt research” would be policed for irrelevancies in an unbiased detached way and errant matters would be sifted out by a team of moderators who would let through only screened items of dedicated cryptographic relevance and they would flag the rest for ditching.
The items that mattered as being of genuine cryptographic interest would be published for readers to see and peruse as having real cryptographic relevance.
This idea was great but sadly it failed – the moderators exceeded their limitations and took it upon themselves to review and judge the crypto submissions from readers – something that was not their intended remit – when they should have been policing the submissions for breaches of behaviour alone in a detached dead pan way.
The group failed due to lack of interest by readers who are also now in sci. crypt. The question begs “how much interest is there in real crypto research in the current sci crypt group and should the sci crypt group be rationalised as a section of readers who want to learn old established ciphers only and are not interested in researching new cryptography”.
Unfortunately such readers who are incapable of any design flair themselves want to hack away with their petulant politics at other more gifted research-orientated readers because of research matters that they cannot comprehend. They either do not have the intellectual wherewithal as a basis to do so or they are unwilling to take foundation courses in the subject matter of the ciphers being discussed that would lead to their eventually comprehending the algorithms of new submissions.
It would be interesting to hear what Mr Schneier has to say about this today, his concept was right of course but his choice of moderators was not it would seem.
- adacrypt
0 new messages