From: John Cowan (cowan@mercury.ccil.org)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 09:51:11 EST
jon@hackcraft.net scripsit:
> That would not describe the current use Theban (when it offers no real
> secrecy, and when most occultists are aware of modern computer-based
> encryption).
The intention of secrecy is not the same thing, obviously, as actual
secrecy, as too many have found out to their cost. But surely the reason
for using Theban, as a practical matter, is to keep the cowans (:-)) out?
"Kid-sister" encryption has its place. For example, a system I
worked on maintained credit card numbers in a database. Using strong
encryption would have been pointless, considering that the key
would have to be on the system for on-line credit card operations.
But it seemed worthwhile to use a simple encryption to keep
DB administrators from seeing card numbers by accident. So we
encoded each digit as a 4-character string in binary, but using
0 and O instead of 0 and 1. So credit card numbers looked like
0O000O0OO0O0000O0OOO00OO0O00O00O0OO00O0OO00O000O000000OO0OO000O0.
Seeing that over someone's shoulder wouldn't help you much.
-- "We are lost, lost. No name, no business, no Precious, nothing. Only empty. Only hungry: yes, we are hungry. A few little fishes, nassty bony little fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death. So wise they are; so just, so very just." --Gollum jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 10:45:35 EST