[cryptography] non-decryptable encryption

The Fungi fungi at yuggoth.org
Wed Jun 20 13:32:58 EDT 2012

On 2012-06-20 09:54:33 -0700 (-0700), Givonne Cirkin wrote:
> curious, why don't some ppl trust link shortners? is that a
> generation gap thing.
> 2nd. ur guesses are wrong. i was born in the USA. my parents were
> born in the USA. my native language is English.

Perhaps this is also "a generation gap thing." Professionals of my
generation converse with colleagues and peers by using complete
sentences and well-structured grammar. That same generation also
prefers canonical URIs and other accurate bibliographical
references/citations. I've been out of academia for a while, so
perhaps the major journals have begun to accept submissions via SMS?

To echo other responses on the paper, the biggest objection (aside
from the minimal novelty of the subject matter itself) is likely to
revolve around your "non-decryptable" terminology. Your method is
clearly not "non-decryptable" to the owner or intended recipient who
possesses the key/pad with which the data was encrypted, or else it
would be useless. Further, no encryption technique is particularly
useful when "decryptable" by unintended agents. As a result the term
adds nothing meaningful in context, being either a logical
contradiction or tautology (depending on your intended connotation).
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP(fungi at yuggoth.org); FINGER(fungi at yuggoth.org);
MUD(kinrui at katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); IRC(fungi at irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); }

More information about the cryptography mailing list